Political Fix The right to die: who should have the final say?
11 snips
Feb 14, 2025 Robert Shrimsley offers keen insights into British politics, alongside Stephen Bush, author of the acclaimed Inside Politics newsletter, and Laura Hughes, the Financial Times' public policy correspondent. They delve into the heated debate over the assisted dying bill, questioning the removal of judicial approval and its implications for safeguards. The conversation also touches on the emotional and ethical dimensions of end-of-life choices, public sentiment, and the intersection of political beliefs and healthcare equity. Additionally, they analyze the impact of recent developments in the Ukraine conflict and UK defense spending needs.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
High Court Approval Inefficient
- Requiring High Court judges to approve assisted dying cases was impractical due to court backlogs.
- The new proposal of expert panels is more efficient but may weaken the bill's support.
Shifting Safeguards Erode Trust
- Changing the assisted dying bill's safeguards, even if for practical reasons, erodes trust in the legislative process.
- Some MPs see the initial High Court judge requirement as a disingenuous safeguard.
Process Arguments Mask Opposition
- Opponents of the assisted dying bill use procedural arguments to undermine it, masking their fundamental opposition.
- Amendments and evolving legislation are normal parts of the legislative process.