THE VENUE: Caffè Nero, Fitzroy St
We meet upstairs at Caffè Nero in Fitzroy St, near to the Grafton Centre and opposite the old Wilko store. An organiser will be present from 10.45.
We are not charged for use of the space so it would be good if everyone bought at least one drink.
An attendee limit has been set so as not to overwhelm the venue.
Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.
WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on:
[email protected] (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)
THE TOPIC: What responsibilities do creators have towards their creations?
This week's topic has been provided by Duncan who also wrote this introduction. We have also discussed the topic informally on the WhatsApp group.
This is a very sensitive topic, so please be kind and mindful of others' feelings and experiences.
It is currently illegal in the UK to assist another person to end their life. Whilst previous attempts have been made to pass a law to permit this, these did not succeed. A new law has been proposed and a bill presented to parliament which MPs will debate and vote on on 29th November. It will be a free vote. The last time MPs voted on whether to legalise assisted dying was in 2015, when it was rejected 330 to 118. This time, the vote is expected to be much closer.
Whilst it is now technically illegal to assist someone, guidance has been given that it is, in many cases, not in the public interest to prosecute. Various opinion polls in recent years have indicated broad and growing, but not unanimous, support for the introduction of assisted dying laws. Such laws would lay out in what circumstances it would be legal to assist someone to end their life.
Various groups and individuals have advocated for and against the introduction of such a law. Around 50 British people travel each year to Dignitas in Switzerland to end their lives, although this is an expensive option not available to all and those travelling with the patient place themselves at legal risk.
The proposed new law would make it legal for someone who is expected to die within the next six months to be prescribed life-ending medication, but the drug must be self-administered by the patient themselves. It cannot be administered by a doctor or anyone else. Does this discriminate against those people unable to do this, perhaps due to physical disability ?
Two independent doctors must be satisfied the person is eligible, and if necessary consult a specialist or expert in mental capacity. This means the new law would not apply to those who wish to end their life due to mental health difficulties as these illnesses are not considered life-limiting in the same way as physical diseases. Does this seem right ? After all, severe mental health conditions can make life just as unbearable but the person may be regarded as having insufficient mental capacity.
Several other countries and states have had assisted dying laws for some years, with mixed results. The proposals most closely align with the law in Oregon, the US state that legalised assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults with a prognosis of six months or less in 1997. The Oregon law has not been extended beyond terminally ill adults.
The proposed legislation for England and Wales is significantly more restrictive than the law in the Netherlands, which allows people who have an incurable condition, face unbearable suffering and are mentally competent to choose voluntary euthanasia or assisted dying.
There is a concern that either people will be coerced or pressurised into choosing this option. The new law proposes a lengthy prison sentence (up to 14 years) for anyone found guilty of this. Is this a sufficient disincentive ? And what of people who feel that they should voluntarily remove the burden of looking after themselves from the their family ?
No doctor will be under any obligation to participate in any part of the process. Is there a possibility that so few will agree to take part that it will difficult to find one or that there will be a 'postcode lottery'. (Doctors are used to saying that someone is expected to die within six months as this is a criterion for certain welfare benefits, e.g. PIP).
As it stands, doctors who intentionally do everything necessary and appropriate to relieve a patient’s pain and suffering, even with the foresight of possible terminal consequences, are considered legally protected when a death is hastened. This seems to be a legal and ethical 'grey area'.
Do we feel that this move reflects the current mood of all people in the UK ? Muslim communities particularly have expressed concerns. Does this change align with increasing secularisation in many other communities ?
One estimate says that around 1000 people may wish to make this choice each year. This is around 1 in 600 of the total annual deaths (c.600,000). Are we making a fuss about something that affects relatively few people ?
Thinking about the vote in parliament, is abstention a valid choice for such an important topic ? Is "I don't know" a reasonable position to hold ? Or is making tough decisions part and parcel of being an MP ? It has been said that some younger members may have insufficient life experience to understand the issue properly. Is this a fair viewpoint ?
