Polly Tinby’s article on the Suicide Bill with the help of Kim Ledbter has a familiar feeling (The concerted attack on death will not prevent the audience with support for this bill, February 14), By attacking the opponents and an approach to their fears. I am not religious, nor do I read the Conservative Party journalism, and I am not part of some mysterious conspiracy and my views are not a “malicious discontent.” I feel a real dismay of manipulation and incompetence exposed to the parliamentary of the draft law.
My point of view comes from my background as a psychiatrist with experience in the interaction between severe physical disease and mental health. The Leadbeater Committee initially refused to hear it from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and retreated in response to the resulting protests, and eventually called a representative of the college and two other psychiatrists (One of themThose who appeared as individual experts.
My session was stopped by Leadbeater, an explanation of the committee that other witnesses did not understand the nature of suicide in the physical disease that limits life; The committee continued to ignore the advice of the three experts that the proposed medical evaluation of the draft law was insufficient.
Another development is the Leadbeater’s suggestion that the psychiatrist will be part of a committee that will present the decisions taken by two doctors who do not fulfill their evaluation of the criteria recommended by its psychological witnesses. It seems that the logical basis for this approach is that the last months of life are not worth it to the point that there is no need to ask about adjustable effects or assistance to them, or provide assistance, perhaps, on the decision to seek suicide with help. Here lies the danger of the bill and the real reason for opposing many opposition.
Alan House
Fakhri Professor in Psychiatry, Leeds University
The Kim Leadbeater’s proposal to expert panels seems to be logical – depending on the available experience (The Supreme Court of England and Wales Bell Bell sought to be canceled, February 10). Coercion can be accurate and widespread. I have always believed that defenders of restorative justice in cases of home abuse fail to understand how coercion works – the word or a look can not have a strong effect on the victim.
The Committee of Experts is likely to determine more coercive coercion than one judge, but only if members are particularly trained in coercion and disability, with inputs of women’s organizations in the volunteer sector such as women’s aid, in addition to ethnic organizations and disability. Only then will have an opportunity to determine how coercion can play.
Caroline air
Newcastle on Tine
Kim Ledbter promised her promise to include a mandatory review of the Supreme Court to submit applications for death with help. It was this promise that persuaded many deputies doubts about supporting their bill in its second reading. Its suggestion of expert fields to oversee applications fake. Like the judiciary, psychiatrists, doctors, and social workers are drowned, and they will be unable to do a long -time task service on the panels. Representatives who originally supported deputies will have their opportunities to change their opinion later this year. John Mainard Keynes said: “When the facts change, I change my opinion.”
Dr. David Jeffrey
West Malfern, and Worsesstrchire
The proposed amendment to Kim Ledbter has filled me with the death law with a lot of help and many with great concern. Leadbeater has Description of the bill As “the most powerful legislation on this issue in the world.” However, the removal of judicial oversight is significantly weakening from the guarantees, which raises concerns about other measures that can be dropped through the legislative process or through the interpretation of doctors.
Although it will be necessary to involve multidisciplinary teams if the law is changed, this is not required at the expense of judicial control. Although we do not yet know who will be appointed in the proposed expert paintings, fears have already arisen that there will be a biases for the self -selection of the voluntary death committee.
My background as a nurse and a priest tells me that the best protection is the current law. I urge Parliament to reject this law. It is neither safe nor sympathetic. Instead, we must focus on providing the best possible pastel care services. People should be presented to hope, not fear.
Sarah Mulali
Bishop of London and the leadership of the bishop of health and social care, the England Church
