Local MPs comment on topics of assisted dying and free speech for Network Farnham

Introduction:

MPs Jeremy Hunt and James Arbuthnot share their thoughts on two of the heated issues discussed in Parliament over the Summer.

'Clause 49: Encouraging or assisting suicide (England and Wales)' Amendment 173 of the Coroners and Justice Bill was moved by Lord Charles Falconer of Thoroton QC (Lab), and defeated in the Lords by 141 votes in favour to 194 against, on Tuesday evening July 7. The amendment did not enjoy Government support, although parliamentary plumblines relating to end of life issues, are appearing to be lowered in one guise or another, into the murky currents swirling around the Thames Embankment with ever increasing frequency.

Hansard Record of Debate (Cols: 595-634)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90707-0006.htm

By contrast the Government did support Clause 61 in the same Bill, which would have removed a free speech protection secured last year. However it lost the vote in the Lords by 186 votes to 133 on Thursday evening July 9, meaning the clarification is to be retained in primary legislation at this stage.

Hansard Record of Debate (Cols: 790-819)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90709-0005.htm#09070982000174

The Coroners and Justice Bill returns to the Commons in the Autumn, when the Government may seek to overturn the decision of 'the other place.'

Jeremy Hunt, Conservative MP for South West Surrey (21 July 2009):

Regarding assisted suicide:

“The onset of a terminal illness is undeniably a tragedy for the individual and their loved ones. The decline of a once fit and active person, often in considerable distress and pain is extremely upsetting. It is understandable that in such circumstances some will look for release. Whilst I personally would have no religious or moral obligations to people taking such a course of action, I have sincere concerns that if assisted dying is legalised, older people may feel pressurised into ending their lives if they feel they have become a burden on loved ones. I remember my own grandmother, who lived until she was 100, and constantly worries she was becoming a burden to her family. I would not want anyone to feel obliged to end their own lives in such a situation.

The law, as it stands, does not allow assisted suicide. However it allows judges the discretion not to prosecute those involved in assisted suicide, as happened in the case of Daniel James. In such a very delicate situation I think that is probably the right balance.”

Regarding free speech:

“The balance between the preservation of free speech and the prevention of incitement of hatred is a delicate one.  I strongly believe that words that incite violent hatred have no place in civilised society.  However as a free society we must also take steps to preserve free speech.  The discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices is not necessarily in itself threatening or intended to stir up hatred."

Regarding assisted dying:

"Assisted dying raises fundamental ethical and practical considerations and any vote on the matter will of course will be a free vote. I support the provisions in the Coroners and Justice Bill relating to the law on 'suicide websites', but I do not believe that the Bill is an appropriate vehicle for dealing with wider end-of-life issues.

Patricia Hewitt tabled an amendment in the House of Commons which would have made it legal for people to help their loved ones travel abroad to die. This proposal was not reached in the debate so MPs did not have the opportunity to vote on the issue. The amendments tabled in the House of Lords by Lords Alderdice and Falconer go further than Patiricia Hewitt’s amendment, in that they would allow assisted suicide in the UK.

Whilst realising that this is, of course, an extremely difficult area, I believe that human life is intrinsically valuable and sacrosanct.

The principle that some individuals’ lives are worth less than others because they are sick, frail or needy is one that should never be espoused. I fear that, if assisted dying is legalised, older people may feel pressurised into ending their lives if they feel they have become a burden on loved ones. We should never place anyone in this position.

There is the danger that what appears to be a voluntary request to die is no such thing. The legalisation of medically assisted deaths could start a process over which we have no control and from which there will be no turning back. I am concerned that any change to the law could create an expectation that certain people should choose death over life, and would therefore question how ‘voluntary’ a request would be.

Though I do not believe that the present law is perfect, it does at least draw a clear distinction between the removal of treatment and allowing nature to take its course on the one hand, and the active commission of death on the other. Whilst I accept that there needs to be some clarity on this issue, I cannot in all conscience support the legalisation of euthanasia."

Regarding free speech:

"As you may know, during the passage of last year’s Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, Lord Waddington proposed an amendment which stated that ‘the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred’. Conservatives tabled a similar amendment which would have protected free speech in a slightly different way, and would have dealt with the concerns some people had about Lord Waddington’s amendment. However, as the Government rejected this, and in light of our concern to ensure free speech was protected, many Conservatives including myself, supported the Waddington amendment.

Inexplicably, the Government inserted a last minute clause to the Coroners and Justice Bill which would remove this protection. During its passage in the House of Commons, the Government managed to keep the clause in the Bill, which is now Clause 61. The Bill is now being debated in the House of Lords.

The balance between protecting society from incitement to homophobic hatred and preserving reasonable public debate is a delicate one. I strongly believe that words that incite violent hatred have no place in civilised society. However, given that nothing appears to have changed since Parliament last reached a solution on this issue, I can only assume that this move is motivated by party politics, rather than any genuine concern for protecting minorities. I would not vote in favour of removing this protection."