辅助死亡法案[HL]:众议院内部的无知?

Chay M Burt
{"title":"辅助死亡法案[HL]:众议院内部的无知?","authors":"Chay M Burt","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v74i4.1024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Presently, within the United Kingdom, the House of Lords are engaged with the latest challenge to the blanket ban on any and all forms of assisted suicide. The Assisted Dying Bill [HL], which now resides in the Committee Stage, provides an exemption for medical practitioners assisting patients in self-administering medicine to end their lives. The Bill is identical to the previous Bill introduced by Lord Falconer. In light of developments within other foreign jurisdictions, the similarities and, perhaps more significantly, differences between the legislative pieces provide an interesting comparative discussion. The Canadian Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) legislation has been in force since 2016 and has since been amended (March 2021). As Canada is somewhat further down the ‘legal road’ in regulating assisted dying, it may prove a fruitful endeavour to use the Canadian developments to assess and predict the possible trajectory of the Assisted Dying Bill in the UK. Features of the Bill reflect similar provisions that have been adjusted or removed in the Canadian legislation, features that are of significant importance and solemnity in the context of those wishing to access assistance in dying. Such examples include that it necessitates that the patient commit the final act, are expected to die within 6 months, and that there must be a ‘reflection period’. Statistical data reporting in Canada has given valuable insight to the provision of MAiD, including some of the features highlighted. The question becomes ‘should the UK Parliament be paying more attention to the Canadian developments in the context of domestic assisted dying Bills?’ Assisted dying is irrefutably embedded deep within many aspects of society. Whether there exists sufficient differences between the societies of the two jurisdictions will determine if the UK is being unnecessarily ignorant or responsibly contextual.","PeriodicalId":509896,"journal":{"name":"Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly","volume":"46 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assisted Dying Bill [HL]: ignorance within the House?\",\"authors\":\"Chay M Burt\",\"doi\":\"10.53386/nilq.v74i4.1024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Presently, within the United Kingdom, the House of Lords are engaged with the latest challenge to the blanket ban on any and all forms of assisted suicide. The Assisted Dying Bill [HL], which now resides in the Committee Stage, provides an exemption for medical practitioners assisting patients in self-administering medicine to end their lives. The Bill is identical to the previous Bill introduced by Lord Falconer. In light of developments within other foreign jurisdictions, the similarities and, perhaps more significantly, differences between the legislative pieces provide an interesting comparative discussion. The Canadian Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) legislation has been in force since 2016 and has since been amended (March 2021). As Canada is somewhat further down the ‘legal road’ in regulating assisted dying, it may prove a fruitful endeavour to use the Canadian developments to assess and predict the possible trajectory of the Assisted Dying Bill in the UK. Features of the Bill reflect similar provisions that have been adjusted or removed in the Canadian legislation, features that are of significant importance and solemnity in the context of those wishing to access assistance in dying. Such examples include that it necessitates that the patient commit the final act, are expected to die within 6 months, and that there must be a ‘reflection period’. Statistical data reporting in Canada has given valuable insight to the provision of MAiD, including some of the features highlighted. The question becomes ‘should the UK Parliament be paying more attention to the Canadian developments in the context of domestic assisted dying Bills?’ Assisted dying is irrefutably embedded deep within many aspects of society. Whether there exists sufficient differences between the societies of the two jurisdictions will determine if the UK is being unnecessarily ignorant or responsibly contextual.\",\"PeriodicalId\":509896,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"46 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v74i4.1024\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v74i4.1024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前,英国上议院正在处理对全面禁止任何和所有形式的协助自杀提出的最新挑战。协助死亡法案》(Assisted Dying Bill)[HL]现已进入委员会审议阶段,该法案为协助病人自行用药结束生命的医生提供了豁免。该法案与福克纳勋爵之前提出的法案完全相同。考虑到其他外国司法管辖区的发展情况,这些立法之间的相似之处,或许更重要的是不同之处,提供了一个有趣的比较讨论。加拿大的临终医疗协助(MAiD)立法自2016年起生效,此后又进行了修订(2021年3月)。由于加拿大在规范协助死亡的 "法律道路 "上走得更远,利用加拿大的发展情况来评估和预测英国《协助死亡法案》的可能轨迹,可能会证明是一项富有成效的努力。该法案的特点反映了加拿大立法中被调整或删除的类似条款,这些特点对于那些希望获得临终协助的人来说具有重要意义和庄严性。例如,它规定病人必须做出最后行为,预计在 6 个月内死亡,并且必须有一个 "反思期"。加拿大的统计数据报告为提供临终辅助提供了有价值的见解,其中包括强调的一些特征。问题变成了 "英国议会是否应该在国内协助死亡法案的背景下更多地关注加拿大的发展?协助死亡已无可辩驳地深入到社会的许多方面。两个司法管辖区的社会之间是否存在足够的差异,将决定英国是不必要地无知,还是负责任地根据具体情况行事。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Assisted Dying Bill [HL]: ignorance within the House?
Presently, within the United Kingdom, the House of Lords are engaged with the latest challenge to the blanket ban on any and all forms of assisted suicide. The Assisted Dying Bill [HL], which now resides in the Committee Stage, provides an exemption for medical practitioners assisting patients in self-administering medicine to end their lives. The Bill is identical to the previous Bill introduced by Lord Falconer. In light of developments within other foreign jurisdictions, the similarities and, perhaps more significantly, differences between the legislative pieces provide an interesting comparative discussion. The Canadian Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) legislation has been in force since 2016 and has since been amended (March 2021). As Canada is somewhat further down the ‘legal road’ in regulating assisted dying, it may prove a fruitful endeavour to use the Canadian developments to assess and predict the possible trajectory of the Assisted Dying Bill in the UK. Features of the Bill reflect similar provisions that have been adjusted or removed in the Canadian legislation, features that are of significant importance and solemnity in the context of those wishing to access assistance in dying. Such examples include that it necessitates that the patient commit the final act, are expected to die within 6 months, and that there must be a ‘reflection period’. Statistical data reporting in Canada has given valuable insight to the provision of MAiD, including some of the features highlighted. The question becomes ‘should the UK Parliament be paying more attention to the Canadian developments in the context of domestic assisted dying Bills?’ Assisted dying is irrefutably embedded deep within many aspects of society. Whether there exists sufficient differences between the societies of the two jurisdictions will determine if the UK is being unnecessarily ignorant or responsibly contextual.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Northern Ireland Executive: politics, law and a rethink of judicial intervention Fettering scrutiny on executive discretionary powers? Developments in the judicial reviewability of ministerial non-statutory guidance Inheriting the royals: royal chartered bodies in Ireland after 1922 The Union in court, Part 3: In Re Allister and Peeples’ Applications for Judicial Review [2023] UKSC 5 A continuing nuisance: Jalla v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Ltd [2023] UKSC 16
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1