That Bill Again

The Justice Committee is having some of their work done for them.
It was always on the cards that some changes would need to be made in the Bill. But its sponsor, David Seymour MP, has sent a 77 pg document to the Committee suggesting changes.
His summary is that the Committee should amend the Bill to provide for:

• a binding referendum at the General Election after the Bill has been passed by Parliament

• amending the eligibility criteria to limit eligibility to terminal illness, not other "irremediable" conditions

• stating clearly that access to assisted dying for people cannot be by reason of mental health conditions and disabilities only

• incorporating the Access to Palliative Care Bill sponsored by Maggie Barry MP.

David also also suggests amendments to clarify the role and protection of pharmacists, nurses, and medical practitioners, the purpose of the SCENZ Group, the register, and the issues of advanced directives, insurance, and suggests providing for the issuing of delay certificates for a person who is eligible for assisted dying but wishes to change the timing of administration.

It seems a remote possibility that Maggie ("Tea Lady") Barry will be pleased to have her alternative proposal incorporated into the End of Life Choice Bill. That's an olive branch that is probably dead on the tree.
Otherwise, David's paper is a comprehensive review of his own Bill and seems to accommodate a large number of the major concerns that have been raised in submissions and public meetings. Let's hope it moves the whole discussion forward. The Committee is to report in March. 

No Change, says the Committee

The Parliamentary Committee on Health has tabled its report in the House. It has not recommended a law change to allow a few people have some choice at the end of their lives.

That's no surprise. Members of the Committee warned those of us who were making submissions that they didn't expect to produce any dramatic proposal. Their best hope at that time was that if David Seymour's bill should come up in the ballot box, Parliament would value the huge body of data the Committee uncovered as it listened to a thousand personal submitters.

Apart from the obvious bias of the Chair, the Committee must be congratulated on their openness to listen to everyone who wished to speak to them. They put themselves under considerable pressure to enable widespread opinion to be canvassed.  Now that that the Seymour bill is on the table their work should provide all the material Parliament could possibly need as it decides how to handle the matter.

But, it seems, that will now wait until the election puts together a new Parliament. Well, the few dozen who may benefit from a change in the law are used to waiting...