I want to flag up a legal point. What do we know about this individual called D who appears in subsection (1)? Is he a friend or relative? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, plainly thinks that we are talking about a loved one. I ask what is no doubt an improper question. Can the loved one benefit from the death? Are there any words that rule out the loved one benefiting?
Benefits take different forms. It could be a financial benefit or relief from the endless burden of caring and visiting, and that aspect of life. There is nothing to exclude benefit from coming to D. Is that why subsection (1)(a) of the proposed new clause states that, ""the act is done solely or principally for the purpose of enabling or assisting T to travel"?"
What is the adverb "principally" doing unless it opens the door to some other motivation, which could be financial?
At the end of the day, what is the likely tendency of this amendment if carried? I agree with those who say that the likely tendency is a green light for a view about what is acceptable in respect of suicide. Suicide can be assisted. At the moment we have one route, which involves travelling abroad. But it will become an acceptable concept once it has been passed in the Lords and, let us suppose, adopted in the Commons.
I want to put this consideration to your Lordships. What do we know from what we read, the people we meet and the world we have moved in for many years about the quality of family care and support in this country? We have all visited countries where disabled people live in the family and are not sent off to homes. We have a rather different attitude from the Victorian age. Many people live alone. Their families do not support them. My perception is that families are broken up here compared with many other countries in the world. What can we expect families to do? What is the probability over the vast range of the population 10 years from today if we have an enactment like this? To my mind, it is inevitable that people will be pressurised into signing up for death.
The argument that I used with the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, which I still believe to be true, is that elderly people can take a hint. It costs a lot of money to keep people in a home and pay the weekly or monthly bills. It costs a lot of money to have a carer at home. Meanwhile, daughters, sons, grandsons and granddaughters cannot afford university fees and cannot pay the mortgage, and there is granny carrying on a useless life in some home or hospice. I fear that this new clause will be used to pressurise people into signing up to an unwanted death.
Coroners and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Neill of Bladen
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 7 July 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Coroners and Justice Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c625 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:43:27 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_575662
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_575662
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_575662