Skip to main content

1-20 of 190 results for subject:Euthanasia

Subject X
Judgements

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More
Judgements (190)

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if she will make an assessment of the implications for her policy of the Belgian court ruling that a nursing home did not have the right to refuse euthanasia on the grounds of conscientious objection.

Asked by
Rosie Cooper (Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
21 July 2016
Reference
43278
House
House of Commons

My Lords, the Government do not agree that this case raises constitutional issues. The issue in this case was whether the prohibition on assisted suicide in the Suicide Act 1961 was incompatible with the appellant’s

right to respect for private and family life. Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that our courts could decide the question of compatibility but that it was not appropriate to do so then. The court encouraged Parliament to consider the issue further. Both Houses have since had the opportunity to do so.

Answered by
Lord Faulks (Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
14 July 2016
Reference
774 c328
House
House of Lords

I thank the Minister for his reply, but he will know that a majority of the Supreme Court justices in the Nicklinson case took the view that the current law is in breach of Article 8 of the human rights convention. They deferred making a declaration of incompatibility only to allow time for Parliament to pass a law to change the situation. Does the Minister accept that a Private Member’s Bill debated on Friday immediately after the Summer Recess was not an adequate response to the Supreme Court justices, and that it is now time for the Government, with Parliament, to pass legislation to allow help to be given to mentally competent terminally ill people who have a consistent wish to avoid unbearable suffering at the very end of their lives?

Asked by
Baroness Meacher (Crossbench)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
14 July 2016
Reference
774 c329
House
House of Lords

The Government recognise that strong views are held on this subject on both sides. It remains the Government’s view that any change in the law is an area for individual conscience and a matter for Parliament to decide rather than for government policy. The noble Baroness and the House will remember the lengthy, thorough and extremely illuminating debates we had last year or the year before in relation to the Private Member’s Bill proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Since then, there has been a Bill in the House of Commons which was defeated at Second Reading.

Answered by
Lord Faulks (Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
14 July 2016
Reference
774 c329
House
House of Lords

My Lords, social as well as medical factors can influence a decision to live, and greedy or uncaring relatives can easily influence that decision—we hear about that every day in the press and in care homes. Does the Minister agree that greater efforts should be made to show that we value all people, whatever their degree of sickness or disability, and that society must work towards better palliative care?

Asked by
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
14 July 2016
Reference
774 c329
House
House of Lords

I am sure that all noble Lords would agree with what the noble Lord said, whatever their views about the issue.

Answered by
Lord Faulks (Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
14 July 2016
Reference
774 c329
House
House of Lords

My Lords, might one way forward be to incorporate into statutory form the guidelines of the DPP, reflecting as desirable the views of the Supreme Court? This would be desirable in itself and might also stand in the way of a declaration of incompatibility, which I would deem to be undesirable.

Asked by
Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
14 July 2016
Reference
774 c329
House
House of Lords

I am grateful for that suggestion. There are different views about whether it is appropriate for the Supreme Court to instruct Parliament to do anything. A lot of academic lawyers consider that Parliament is much better equipped to decide these issues. Judges and courts will inevitably consider the

matter on a case-by-case basis as opposed to the polycentric view that Parliament will be able to bring to it. I respectfully submit that it is a matter for Parliament.

Answered by
Lord Faulks (Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
14 July 2016
Reference
774 c329
House
House of Lords

My Lords, there are significant issues about end of life: palliative care, which everyone wants to see better and more widespread; the assisted dying issues which the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, referred to; and also how end-of-life decisions are taken with people who are dying, which is nothing to do with the assisted dying issue. With a new Government and with genuine concern about this issue, what would the Minister think about a royal commission or a similar body being set up to address the issues of end-of-life care, including assisted dying?

Asked by
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Labour)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
14 July 2016
Reference
774 c330
House
House of Lords

The noble and learned Lord will not be surprised that I am not able to give any announcement to the effect that there should be some sort of commission at this stage, but clearly there remains great concern. This is a very difficult issue. Polling indicates a move towards the approach exemplified by the noble and learned Lord’s Bill. No doubt any Government, of whatever hue, will have in mind what the public want.

Answered by
Lord Faulks (Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
14 July 2016
Reference
774 c330
House
House of Lords

Do the Government recognise that, apart from the defeat of the Bill in the House of Commons, the BMA has undertaken an extensive study of end-of-life care? I declare an interest as a former president of the BMA and as someone involved in palliative care. The study showed that doctors do not want to be involved in this because they see it as unsafe. A survey undertaken showed that only one in seven GPs are prepared to be involved in assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia and that, when the public heard more about what was involved, support decreased so that it became equipoised? Overall, there was objection from doctors, which was reinforced recently at the BMA annual representative meeting.

Asked by
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
14 July 2016
Reference
774 c330
House
House of Lords

The House and I am aware of that and of the noble Baroness’s particular expertise in this area.

Answered by
Lord Faulks (Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
14 July 2016
Reference
774 c330
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the commission on assisted dying chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Does the Minister see any contradiction between the Government taking no action about something that 82% of the public believe should happen and taking enormous action over a 52:48 split?

Asked by
Lord Blair of Boughton (Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
14 July 2016
Reference
774 c330
House
House of Lords

The terms of the European Union Referendum Act were much debated in this House and, no doubt, they will continue to be debated. As to polls, I am aware of the poll to which the noble Lord referred. There are other polls and views differ, as he is well aware.

Answered by
Lord Faulks (Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
14 July 2016
Reference
774 c330
House
House of Lords

My Lords, does the Minister remember that, in the evidence which was given to the Select Committee that looked into this for

the House years ago, one of the witnesses said that the last thing he would like to be is in a place where public opinion determined the law?

Asked by
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Conservative)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
14 July 2016
Reference
774 c330
House
House of Lords

It is a matter for Parliament. No doubt the expertise in this House and the House of Commons can be brought to bear on these issues.

Answered by
Lord Faulks (Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
14 July 2016
Reference
774 c331
House
House of Lords

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the constitutional implications of the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment in the case of R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38.

Asked by
Baroness Meacher (Crossbench)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
Date
14 July 2016
Reference
774 cc328-331
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 2 along with the noble Lord, Lord Darzi of Denham, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and I wish to speak to Amendment 2 now. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord...

Member
Lord Carlile of Berriew (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 November 2014
Reference
756 cc1853-6
House
House of Lords

My Lords, it is a privilege to open the Committee stage of this important Bill, the significance of which is demonstrated by the very large number of your Lordships who are present today. The Second Reading debate on the Bill was commended by many observers outside the House as illustrating...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 November 2014
Reference
756 cc1852-3
House
House of Lords

Coroners and Justice Bill. Lords report stage second day.

Department
Ministry of Justice
Type
Debates on bills
Date
26 October 2009
Reference
713 c981-1043; 713 c1059-94
House
House of Lords