| |
Mrs E Chowdharay-Best
27 Walpole Street
LONDON
SW3 4QS
30 March 2005
Ref: MCB0405/23
FINAL CHANCE TO OPPOSE EUTHANASIA BY NEGLECT
-
MENTAL CAPACITY BILL HOUSE OF COMMONS, TUESDAY 5 APRIL
Dear Supporter,
Parliament is on the brink of enshrining euthanasia by
neglect in statute law, following the House of Lords' approval
of the Mental Capacity Bill on Maundy Thursday, The Bill now
returns to the House of Commons on 5 April for the Commons to
consider amendments made by the Government to the Bill in the
House of Lords. The Bill as a whole was passed by the Lords without
a division, partly due to the departure of many Lords for the
Faster holiday. A pro-life amendment to restrict lasting powers
of attorney was defeated 118 to 18.
When the Bill returns to the House of Commons on Tuesday,
MP's can only consider the amendments made in the House of Lords.
They have three ways of voting:
• To agree with individual Lords' amendments
• To disagree with individual Lords' amendments
• To delete, amend or replace individual Lords' amendments
with their own ("move amendments in lieu").
MPs cannot amend any clauses of the Bill which have not.
been amended in the House of Lords.
Despite the Government making around 100 amendments to
the Bill in the House of Lords, the Bill still enshrines euthanasia
by neglect in statute law. The amendments do not deal directly
with the principles underlying the Bill. Any MP who is concerned
about euthanasia must do whatever is possible on 5 April to reverse
the Bill's euthanasia nature,
Among the Lords' amendments that the Commons should amend
are:
• Government's amendment to clause 4(5)
(best interests), which the Government wrongly claims will prevent
decisions to refuse life-sustaining treatment "motivated
by a desire to bring about [the patient's] death": Lethal
decisions will not be prevented by the Government's amendment.
The Government amendment permits intentional killing (by omission)
as a means to an end (e.g. where the desire is to end the patient's
suffering, or fulfil the patient's living will). If challenged,
those complicit in the patient's death can claim that they were
simply motivated by a desire to use the lawful powers given to
them by the Bill. Considering that they can also claim that they
were acting in what they decided was the patient's "best
interests" the Bill allows them lawfully to do what is currently
unlawful, e.g, dehydration of stroke patients, MPs should change
this amendment to prohibit any act or omission which of itself
and by intention causes death. MI's should also, if at all possible,
insert objective factors into "best interests" such
as preservation of life and restoration of health.
• Government's amendments to "advance decisions"
("living wills); these should be changed to make advance
decisions advisory (i.e. not legally-binding), and to exclude
suicidally-motivated advance decisions. "Living wills"
were invented, and are being promoted, by the euthanasia movement.
• Government amendment to court-appointed deputies:
this amendment is welcome because it removed the power of court-appointed
deputies to deny life-sustaining treatment. However, it needs
to be strengthened to cover all treatment, because "life-sustaining"
is an ambiguous term, (The same point can be made about the government's
amendment to clause 4(5), best interests.)
Please note that these amendments alone will not be sufficient
to reverse the Bill's euthanasia nature. Other amendments would
be needed - such as restricting lasting powers of attorney and
making sure that the definition of `treatment' sloes not include
basic care such as tube-feeding - but these amendments may not
be able to be passed due to the constraints of parliamentary
rules and the scandalously short time (one hour) in which MP's
must consider the Lords' amendments.
Please call your MP immediately via the House of Commons switchboard
on 020 7219 3000, and if possible email your MP via these websites:
www.writetothem.com
or www.locata.co.uk/commons.
Parliament is on the brink - it can either
preserve what is left of the sanctity of human life in our law
by rejecting the Bill or make the survival of the fittest the
standard for our health service by passing the Bill. Please act
now!
Yours in defence of life,
John Smeaton National Director
|
|
