Danny Kruger says those who backed the bill did so under false premise after change to safeguards announced
In his Today programme interview Danny Kruger, an opponent of the assisted dying bill, claimed that getting rid of the requirement for a judge to approve assisted dying applications at a court hearing, and replacing that with scrutiny by an expert panel (see 9.29am), would make the process private. He said:
Crucially, [the expert panel] won’t be sitting under the normal procedures of a court. I presume they won’t be sitting in public. They won’t be hearing evidence from both sides, hearing arguments from both sides. It will be an approval process rather than a judicial process.
It wouldn’t be done in private. It would take into account patient confidentiality, but they would be public proceedings.
And I think it’s really difficult to suggest that, by having three experts involved in this extra layer of scrutiny, that is somehow a change for the worse. It’s absolutely a change for the better.
Safeguards on the Assisted Dying Bill are collapsing. Rushed, badly thought out legislation. Needs to be voted down.
The protections that were promised in the assisted dying bill are being watered down even before this becomes law.
This bill is being rushed, it is not properly thought through, none of concerns raised at second reading have been addressed.
This should be dropped as a Private Members Bill, given government time (as it’s clear that Starmer supports this) and debated properly to ensure that if it becomes law it is in good shape.
The key safeguard that was used to persuade MPs who raised valid questions about the bill has now been dropped. To say this is worrying is an understatement.
Can they explain why lawyers, psychiatrists & social workers won’t be overwhelmed? Just a farce.
Even before it has become law, promised safeguards in assisted dying legislation are being dropped. Had @Keir_Starmer agreed to my request for proper debate in government time, MPs would have been able to properly scrutinise this bill. Instead, it’s being rushed through.
Continue reading… The Guardian Read More Danny Kruger says those who backed the bill did so under false premise after change to safeguards announcedIn his Today programme interview Danny Kruger, an opponent of the assisted dying bill, claimed that getting rid of the requirement for a judge to approve assisted dying applications at a court hearing, and replacing that with scrutiny by an expert panel (see 9.29am), would make the process private. He said:Crucially, [the expert panel] won’t be sitting under the normal procedures of a court. I presume they won’t be sitting in public. They won’t be hearing evidence from both sides, hearing arguments from both sides. It will be an approval process rather than a judicial process.It wouldn’t be done in private. It would take into account patient confidentiality, but they would be public proceedings.And I think it’s really difficult to suggest that, by having three experts involved in this extra layer of scrutiny, that is somehow a change for the worse. It’s absolutely a change for the better.Safeguards on the Assisted Dying Bill are collapsing. Rushed, badly thought out legislation. Needs to be voted down.The protections that were promised in the assisted dying bill are being watered down even before this becomes law.This bill is being rushed, it is not properly thought through, none of concerns raised at second reading have been addressed.This should be dropped as a Private Members Bill, given government time (as it’s clear that Starmer supports this) and debated properly to ensure that if it becomes law it is in good shape.The key safeguard that was used to persuade MPs who raised valid questions about the bill has now been dropped. To say this is worrying is an understatement.Can they explain why lawyers, psychiatrists & social workers won’t be overwhelmed? Just a farce.Even before it has become law, promised safeguards in assisted dying legislation are being dropped. Had @Keir_Starmer agreed to my request for proper debate in government time, MPs would have been able to properly scrutinise this bill. Instead, it’s being rushed through. Continue reading…
