Both of the Isle of Wight’s MPs voted against the controversial Assisted Dying Bill, which passed through the House of Commons on Friday (20th June) with a narrow majority of 314 votes to 291.
The proposed legislation, which seeks to legalise assisted dying under certain conditions, has provoked strong opinions nationwide, including among the Island’s parliamentary representatives.
Richard Quigley, MP for Isle of Wight West, said that while the debate was emotional, his concerns stemmed from the perceived lack of robust safeguards in the bill. He cited specific unease about what he described as the ‘Anorexia Loophole’, arguing that the current provisions fail to offer adequate protections.
Richard has said:
“This bill was always going to be emotional, but it was never about winning or losing, but having the chance to debate. We have done that and the bill has now passed. My opposition is based on the belief the safeguards, particularly around the so-called ‘Anorexia Loophole’, are not robust or comprehensive enough.
“As the bill moves to the House of Lords, I urge peers to apply rigorous scrutiny. It is essential that every aspect of its implementation is thoroughly examined, with close attention to the risks and unresolved unintended consequences”.
Joe Robertson, MP for Isle of Wight East, echoed concerns about insufficient safeguards, highlighting changes made to the bill since its previous reading. He raised alarm over the replacement of High Court oversight with a professional panel lacking judicial powers.
Joe says:
“I voted against the Assisted Dying Bill, not because I am against the principle of wanting to relieve suffering, but because there are too many loopholes, too few safeguards and potential for unintended consequences in the Bill. It has been amended for the worse since we last voted on it.
“For example, the role for a Judge in the High Court has been replaced by a ‘panel’ of professionals with no power to summon witnesses. It means that Judges can decide whether a child has been coerced into wanting to spend time with only one parent (in divorce proceedings) but not whether a grandparent has been coerced into wanting to end their life (under assisted dying laws). As a former family lawyer I find this both perverse and dangerous.”
The bill now moves to the House of Lords, where further amendments and scrutiny are expected.
Well done for Joe and Richard for seeing sense,
just imagine how many Shipmans may be out there.
if that’s what you think, you obviously don’t understand the proposed legislation.
You didn’t really expect they would?
I know that persons in certain positions will
abuse their position.
You believe what you believe and I will believe what
I believe.
I just pray the House of Lords stops this nonsense.
It appears that you don’t understand the respective roles of the Commons and Lords either. The Lords can make amendments but the Bill still has to return to the Commons where those amendments may or may not survive but they have no power to stop the legislation.
Shipman worked alone; this would require the sign off by several doctors and a panel of judges.
I think you a short sighted and lack experience and empathy for anyone but yourself personally
A lot of those arguing against assisted dying, seem to push the point that rather than agreeing to let someone make that choice, we should be providing a more comprehensive and effective palliative care system, so that, even in an extreme condition, people should be kept alive, and pain free until they die from their condition. However, this argument seems to ignore that fact that the palliative care system in this country, is the most part, run and funded by charities,.. who’s limited funding from government is even now being cut further.
Without significant tax rises, the funding necessary for a comprehensive and effective palliative care system is never going to be available from this or any other government (with the possible exception of the Lib Dems).
If parliament ends up voting against allowing people to decide for themselves, they will also be committing those same people to care under an ever more under-funded palliative care system.
I wonder how much either of these elected representatives of the people, considered the views of those who voted them in, rather than their own, personal, views.
It is irrefutable, that to be in the position to be able to stand as an MP, puts those who are in a considerably different demographic to the majority of those who vote for them, and therefore they are also likely to have a considerably different mindset in relation to the subject of assisted dying.
Should the decision of whether or not to allow someone, potentially in extreme and unavoidable agony, to chose how and when to end their own life, be left to those who’s own life experience does not necessarily represent that of the general public.
Surely, if we want this decision to be in the public interest, then it should be made by the public & put to a referendum.
A referendum would make sense.
I have read many articles of persons who had been given
only so long to live and they lived many years longer.
We can’t have a referendum on everything. Nothing would ever get done.
Speaking as someone who was given at most six months to live and fifteen years later is still here to tell the tale, I think it is important to understand the difference between length and quality of life. I am very pleased to have had an extra fifteen years and hope for many more. But that is based on the fact that I have been able to return to a fulfilled life where I was able to return to work, do the everyday things most people are able to enjoy and be happy. Had I been in the physical position I was in at the time when I was not expected to live, I should not have wished to live for a further fifteen years ill, in pain, dependent on others for almost everything.
These are serious matters and each case is unique to to the individual. I do not suggest that assisted dying should become the norm but I believe there is a place for it in the range of options open to those people who fulfil the criteria. The safeguards need to be robust and kept under constant review but we must approach this subject with humanity, understanding and kindness.
Amen. Me too. Not sure I’d choose to live now though, this world and it’s lack of humanity sickens me.
Yes, in agony. And you think you have a right to vote on that?
Disappointed- we treat animals better than humans when it comes to assisted dying. If anyone has been in the position of watching a loved one fade away to nothing and getting to that stage by living continuously in pain can understand the need for this legislation. Not every doctor is a ‘Shipman’. If someone can show that it is their wish without any coercion then it should be allowed…
Families could do a lot more to help their
loved ones, many choose not too when they become
older and poorly.
Other nationalities look after their relatives much better.
“Other nationalities look after their relatives much better”
Precisely,..a lot of other countries and states already have legalised assisted dying, to that people’s relatives don’t have to suffer when they choose not to…
Joe Robertson: “For example, the role for a Judge in the High Court has been replaced by a ‘panel’ of professionals …. It means that Judges can decide whether a child has been coerced into wanting to spend time with only one parent (in divorce proceedings) but not whether a grandparent has been coerced into wanting to end their life (under assisted dying laws).”
presumably your background as lawyer, sways your opinion towards thinking that a non-medically-qualified Judge, is more fitting to make a judgement on it, than a panel of experts who are qualified in relevant fields??
there is a world of difference between deciding which parent a child should live with, and whether a rational adult, with a terminal illness, has the right to decide to end their own life, in a manner and time of their own choosing.
So in the space of a few weeks the UK can now abort babies up to birth and kill off old people before their time .the convenience of adults must come first.
Not quite.
‘The current law in England and Wales states that abortion is illegal but allowed up to the first 24 weeks of pregnancy and beyond that in certain circumstances such as if the woman’s life is in danger. Women can also take medication at home to terminate their pregnancies under 10 weeks.’
your comment just shows how ignorant you are of the legislation in both cases.
Blimey, quiggers has done something useful for once.
The anorexia loophole….bit of a slippery argument Richard…unless you want to go back to the Cat and Mouse Act where food refusers could be pinned down and force fed? We can’t currently do that with anorexics (case law 2012), they have the right to choose. Where is choice, autonomy and the right to personal liberty in both life and death? Do we really need a paternalistic state where daddy knows best, in spite of medical evidence which says a person will have a failing quality of life and would prefer to die? What about the floodgates that could open apropos of abortion rights (or denial of) which could make the state the arbiter? We are supposed to be progressing, not regressing!
Shame on you Quiggles. I expected as much from a Tory, but you?
Oh, and JC’s bit about the coercion of grandparent not under the remit of judges….it would be, it’s illegal. But then that’s the speciality of criminal lawyers not family ones. They deal with divorce, custody and financial…usually a rubber stamp operation unless there’s coercion involved and then it goes to a judges ruling anyway. Try Human Rights Joe…
I feel that I should be able to choose “assisted dying” at any time as long as I have the mental capacity to make that decision.
Usually you would not need to be assisted. Suicide has been practiced through the ages. This legislation is designed to accommodate those whose health meant thatthey could not achieve their end unassisted but would, as the law currently stands, cause the person assiting them to be open to very serious criminal charges or manslaughter or murder.
At the end of the day we should have our human rights protected.
If we can legally take our own lives without repercussions we should be able to state somewhere as well if we want to be assisted if or when the time arises and we are so ill or in so much pain that would need to happen. We are all adults not children.
To watch someone you love suffer and know they can’t go on but be unable to help is unbearable.
It is a serious matter of course, but we’re not talking about every day situations here are we, its desperate measures.
I agree, we make those awful decisions for our beloved pets we should be able to assist when asked our loved ones.
I disagree that doctors would potentially turn into Shipman as well. He was a sadistic murderer after all and didn’t do those things to help anyone but his vile self.
I also agree that every possible stone should be investigated and loopholes challenged. It’s true, basic palliative care, care in general falls way too short often for those at the end of life.
It also falls far too short at those at the very beginning of life too I have read recently.
It’s a very rocky and frightening world for all of us particularly those most vulnerable