header-logo header-logo

Assisted Dying Bill: time to reflect?

01 August 2014 / Catriona Nicol , Khawar Qureshi KC
Issue: 7617 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights
printer mail-detail
specialist_humanrights_nicol

The Assisted Dying Bill as currently drafted is highly unsatisfactory & in need of significant amendments, say Khawar Qureshi QC & Catriona Nicol

On 18 July 2014, the House of Lords debated the Assisted Dying Bill, which legalises physician-assisted dying for terminally-ill patients. The proposed change in the law has been met with criticism, both as a matter of principle and practice.

The Bill is the fifth dealing with assisted dying to come before Parliament in 10 years (with previous Bills (three introduced by Lord Joffe between 2004 and 2006 and one introduced by Lord Falconer in 2013) in substantially similar terms to the present Bill) having failed to become legislation). In 2006, Lord Joffe’s Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill was defeated following debate by 148 votes to 100.

Commission on Assisted Dying

The Commission on Assisted Dying (COAD) (a non-state body launched in 2010 with funding from Terry Pratchett and Bernard Lewis, patrons of Dignity in Dying) was set up to consider whether

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll