Campaigner’s disquiet at passing of Mental Capacity Bill
-15/12/04
Pro-lifers have expr
Campaigner’s disquiet at passing of Mental Capacity Bill
-15/12/04
Pro-lifers have expressed “deep disquiet” at the passing of the Mental Capacity Bill, which campaigners say would introduce ‘euthanasia by the back door’, through its Third Reading in the House of Commons.
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) said the Government had “refused to reverse the euthanasia nature” of the Bill and had used the whipping system to force it through “a sceptical House of Commons”.
There was a stir during the debate 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 say pro-lifers. However many MPs were unable to obtain copies of the correspondence.
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. But 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.
Paul Tully, SPUC general secretary, commented: “The vote of 118 against the Bill at Third Reading reflected the reluctance of MPs to accept the Government’s assurances about an alleged understanding with Archbishop Peter Smith of Cardiff that the Government would amend the Bill in the House of Lords to exclude euthanasia.
“The Commons was in uproar during the Bill’s Report Stage when Government officials circulated correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and Archbishop Smith in which the Archbishop claimed that the Government has made a crucial concession on the Billís legal effect of permitting euthanasia by omission.
“The Lord Chancellor’s letter to Archbishop Smith gives no indication of the text of any proposed amendments. It’s all smoke and mirrors. The Lord Chancellor’s ambiguous proposal crucially refers to excluding decisions only “where the motive is to kill” rather than intention to kill. What matters in the eyes of the law is the intention to kill – motive is simply what moved the person to kill, which might be a misguided notion of compassion.”
The Government rejected Report Stage amendments, backed by 200 MPs, which represented 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.
Mr Tully concluded: “In the light of today’s farcical proceedings in the Commons, we urge the House of Lords to give the Bill and any new amendments by the Government strict scrutiny, with a view to rejecting the Bill unless the euthanasia nature of the Bill is reversed.”
Campaigner’s disquiet at passing of Mental Capacity Bill
-15/12/04
Pro-lifers have expressed “deep disquiet” at the passing of the Mental Capacity Bill, which campaigners say would introduce ‘euthanasia by the back door’, through its Third Reading in the House of Commons.
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) said the Government had “refused to reverse the euthanasia nature” of the Bill and had used the whipping system to force it through “a sceptical House of Commons”.
There was a stir during the debate 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 say pro-lifers. However many MPs were unable to obtain copies of the correspondence.
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. But 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.
Paul Tully, SPUC general secretary, commented: “The vote of 118 against the Bill at Third Reading reflected the reluctance of MPs to accept the Government’s assurances about an alleged understanding with Archbishop Peter Smith of Cardiff that the Government would amend the Bill in the House of Lords to exclude euthanasia.
“The Commons was in uproar during the Bill’s Report Stage when Government officials circulated correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and Archbishop Smith in which the Archbishop claimed that the Government has made a crucial concession on the Billís legal effect of permitting euthanasia by omission.
“The Lord Chancellor’s letter to Archbishop Smith gives no indication of the text of any proposed amendments. It’s all smoke and mirrors. The Lord Chancellor’s ambiguous proposal crucially refers to excluding decisions only “where the motive is to kill” rather than intention to kill. What matters in the eyes of the law is the intention to kill – motive is simply what moved the person to kill, which might be a misguided notion of compassion.”
The Government rejected Report Stage amendments, backed by 200 MPs, which represented 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.
Mr Tully concluded: “In the light of today’s farcical proceedings in the Commons, we urge the House of Lords to give the Bill and any new amendments by the Government strict scrutiny, with a view to rejecting the Bill unless the euthanasia nature of the Bill is reversed.”