Amendment defeated but Government offers concessions over Mental Capacity Bill
-14/12/04
Doctors may be empowered to withhold treatment at the request of their terminally-ill patients after a backbench revolt on the Mental Capacity Bill failed amid chaotic scenes in the Commons.
There was a stir when government officials circulated correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and Catholic Archbishop Peter Smith of Cardiff in which the Archbishop claimed that the Government has made a crucial concession on the Billís legal effect of permitting euthanasia by omission.
The Government attempted to unveil this correspondence in the middle of the debate in order to trump objections to the Bill.
However many MPs were unable to obtain copies of the correspondence and this led to a sharp rebuke from the Deputy Speaker, who warned that such a thing should never happen again.
Lord Falconer has written to the Archbishop of Cardiff, Peter Smith, saying the bill is not meant to authorise any decision where the motive is to kill as opposed to relieve or prevent suffering or ending treatment where the patient is in an irreversible coma.
Ministers will now try to make that intention explicit in the bill.
Archbishop Smith said he wanted to see the details of any changes but told BBC News: “In principle, I think they have conceded the point. There was a lot of misunderstanding.”
MPs complained of “farce” because they had not seen the letter as they prepared to vote on a series of backbenchers’ amendments.
Eventually Constitutional Affairs Minister David Lammy read the letter and confirmed the lord chancellor’s promise would cover acts of omission of treatment, including food and fluids.
He said the government did not want to change the law but to strengthen it.
The Governmentís majority was cut when 200 MPs backed amendments representing concerns that the Bill would allow and even
compel the denial of ordinary treatment, as well as basic care such as tube-feeding, from patients who canít communicate.
However, an amendment tables by Iain Duncan Smith’s amendment which would have prevented doctors from taking any action that would hasten the end to a person’s life was defeated by 297 votes to 203, a majority of 94.
Critics have claimed that the bill would legalise euthanasia “by the back door”.
The bill would allow people to draft “living wills” saying they want medical treatment withheld if they become severely incapacitated.
The Mental Capacity Bill has broad support from charities who say it would give better safeguards over treatment.
But some Christian groups and churches say it could mean doctors withholding food and fluids even if they think it inappropriate.
In a statement issued last night, The Catholic Bishops’ of England and Wales said said that while they welcome the fact that the Government has engaged in dialogue and already made significant changes to the draft Bill, nonetheless it still has two serious weaknesses. Unless these are addressed, the Bill could still become a vehicle for euthanasia by omission or withdrawal of medical treatment, they said.
Amendment defeated but Government offers concessions over Mental Capacity Bill
-14/12/04
Doctors may be empowered to withhold treatment at the request of their terminally-ill patients after a backbench revolt on the Mental Capacity Bill failed amid chaotic scenes in the Commons.
There was a stir when government officials circulated correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and Catholic Archbishop Peter Smith of Cardiff in which the Archbishop claimed that the Government has made a crucial concession on the Billís legal effect of permitting euthanasia by omission.
The Government attempted to unveil this correspondence in the middle of the debate in order to trump objections to the Bill.
However many MPs were unable to obtain copies of the correspondence and this led to a sharp rebuke from the Deputy Speaker, who warned that such a thing should never happen again.
Lord Falconer has written to the Archbishop of Cardiff, Peter Smith, saying the bill is not meant to authorise any decision where the motive is to kill as opposed to relieve or prevent suffering or ending treatment where the patient is in an irreversible coma.
Ministers will now try to make that intention explicit in the bill.
Archbishop Smith said he wanted to see the details of any changes but told BBC News: “In principle, I think they have conceded the point. There was a lot of misunderstanding.”
MPs complained of “farce” because they had not seen the letter as they prepared to vote on a series of backbenchers’ amendments.
Eventually Constitutional Affairs Minister David Lammy read the letter and confirmed the lord chancellor’s promise would cover acts of omission of treatment, including food and fluids.
He said the government did not want to change the law but to strengthen it.
The Governmentís majority was cut when 200 MPs backed amendments representing concerns that the Bill would allow and even
compel the denial of ordinary treatment, as well as basic care such as tube-feeding, from patients who canít communicate.
However, an amendment tables by Iain Duncan Smith’s amendment which would have prevented doctors from taking any action that would hasten the end to a person’s life was defeated by 297 votes to 203, a majority of 94.
Critics have claimed that the bill would legalise euthanasia “by the back door”.
The bill would allow people to draft “living wills” saying they want medical treatment withheld if they become severely incapacitated.
The Mental Capacity Bill has broad support from charities who say it would give better safeguards over treatment.
But some Christian groups and churches say it could mean doctors withholding food and fluids even if they think it inappropriate.
In a statement issued last night, The Catholic Bishops’ of England and Wales said said that while they welcome the fact that the Government has engaged in dialogue and already made significant changes to the draft Bill, nonetheless it still has two serious weaknesses. Unless these are addressed, the Bill could still become a vehicle for euthanasia by omission or withdrawal of medical treatment, they said.