Brits Empower Secret Courts to Decide Life and Death

[cmotherofpirl]

Brits Empower Secret Courts to Decide Life and Death in Living Wills
Makes doctors liable to criminal prosecution, should they refuse to kill patients in accordance with a “living will”

By Peter J. Smith

LONDON, August 16, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - British ministers decided Monday that new courts established to arbitrate life and death for patients in cases involving “living wills” and “powers of attorney” will have license to conduct their proceedings in secret away from public scrutiny, according to a report in the Daily Mail. According to the Mail, the new Court of Protection mandated by the Mental Capacity Act of 2005 “will be the first legal tribunal in Britain to hold life-and-death powers since the abolition of the death penalty for murder in 1965.”

Under rules outlined in a “consultation paper“ by Lord Falconer, the new Court of Protection will have authority to convene in secret to adjudicate cases disputing advance decisions to refuse or withdraw treatment for incapacitated hospital patients contained in “living wills” or “powers of attorney”.

The rules state that a judge may carry on proceedings in secret if publicity would defeat the object of the hearing; if confidential information is involved; if a private hearing would protect the interests of the patient; or if the judge “considers this to be necessary in the interests of justice.”

“The court may order that identities of people involved in a case are not disclosed if it is considered necessary to protect their interests,” adds Falconer. Furthermore, he acknowledges, “The circumstances under which the court may consider that all or part of a hearing should be heard in private are wide.”

However, under the MCA, a patient’s advance directive or “living will” to refuse or withdraw life-preserving treatment does not necessarily need to have an establishment in writing. In fact, a patient’s verbal communiqué of his wishes suffices as an advance directive or “living will”, even if the incapacitated patient left a written directive to the contrary. In cases such as these, the Court of Protections will decide whether a patient lives or dies.

Critics point out that while the MCA opened up a chaotic situation in the first place where anyone may claim a patient gave them a verbal “living will” to forgo life-preserving treatment, its inherent problems are only exacerbated by granting the court the power to euthanize patients.

“It will allow the courts to do anything and everything and nobody will ever find out,” decried Robert Whelan of the Civitas think tank. “It reminds me of the Abortion Act - it was supposed to have a very limited effect but when things turned out otherwise it was too late to do anything about it. We won't know what is going on in these courts.”

Furthermore, the MCA makes doctors liable to criminal prosecution, should they refuse to kill their patients in accordance with a “living will” which the Court establishes as existing and valid.

The rules for the new Court of Protection set out in Lord Falconer’s “consultation paper” will go into effect on the authority of Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips concurrently with the Mental Capacity Act going into operation next April. The new Court of Protection’s leading judge will be Sir Mark Potter, President of the Family Division.

[Budge]

That is messed up.

I believe Living wills are abused.

People write living wills when they are healthy and functional, and isnt it possible when they are laying near death THEY MAY CHANGE THEIR MINDS?

[chris]

Yeah I do agree Living Wills can be abused.

Living Wills do have their place and can be good. However, they can be used I would say quite ineptly.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Convert4888' post='1045271' date='Aug 17 2006, 07:06 AM']
Yeah I do agree Living Wills can be abused.

Living Wills do have their place and can be good. However, they can be used I would say quite ineptly.
[/quote]
They can also be misinterpreted and challenged, just as if someone did not have a living will. I think in some (many?) cases, having one or not having one amounts to the same thing.


In reference to the article, it's rather disconcerting. By removing they from public scrutiny, who's going to keep them honest?

Edited August 17, 2006 by MissScripture

[Resurrexi]

Ever since Mary I's death England has been a hell-hole, so this is the kind of thing I expect from them.

[MissScripture]

Re-reading the article causes me a few questions:

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1045256' date='Aug 17 2006, 06:14 AM']

The rules state that a judge may carry on proceedings in secret if publicity would defeat the object of the hearing; if confidential information is involved; if a private hearing would protect the interests of the patient; or if the judge “considers this to be necessary in the interests of justice.”

“The court may order that identities of people involved in a case are not disclosed if it is considered necessary to protect their interests,” adds Falconer. Furthermore, he acknowledges, “The circumstances under which the court may consider that all or part of a hearing should be heard in private are wide.”
[/quote]

Does this mean that the entire proceeding would be held secretly, or just that the identies would be hidden, or both?
[quote]
However, under the MCA, a patient’s advance directive or “living will” to refuse or withdraw life-preserving treatment does not necessarily need to have an establishment in writing. In fact, a patient’s verbal communiqué of his wishes suffices as an advance directive or “living will”, even if the incapacitated patient left a written directive to the contrary. In cases such as these, the Court of Protections will decide whether a patient lives or dies.

Critics point out that while the MCA opened up a chaotic situation in the first place where anyone may claim a patient gave them a verbal “living will” to forgo life-preserving treatment, its inherent problems are only exacerbated by granting the court the power to euthanize patients.[/quote] So, anyone can claim this? Like a complete stranger who happened to be walking past? ...although I should hope that the courts would have the good sense to look into the background history of someone making these claims...

[quote]Furthermore, the MCA makes doctors liable to criminal prosecution, should they refuse to kill their patients in accordance with a “living will” which the Court establishes as existing and valid.
[/quote] The wording of this causes me to ask, by kill do they mean actively or passively? Because there is a big difference between turning off a ventilator and administering a leathal drug or something. (I actually don't know, is active euthanasia legal in England?)

[MissScripture]

Re-reading the article causes me a few questions:

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1045256' date='Aug 17 2006, 06:14 AM']

The rules state that a judge may carry on proceedings in secret if publicity would defeat the object of the hearing; if confidential information is involved; if a private hearing would protect the interests of the patient; or if the judge “considers this to be necessary in the interests of justice.”

“The court may order that identities of people involved in a case are not disclosed if it is considered necessary to protect their interests,” adds Falconer. Furthermore, he acknowledges, “The circumstances under which the court may consider that all or part of a hearing should be heard in private are wide.”
[/quote]

Does this mean that the entire proceeding would be held secretly, or just that the identies would be hidden, or both?
[quote]
However, under the MCA, a patient’s advance directive or “living will” to refuse or withdraw life-preserving treatment does not necessarily need to have an establishment in writing. In fact, a patient’s verbal communiqué of his wishes suffices as an advance directive or “living will”, even if the incapacitated patient left a written directive to the contrary. In cases such as these, the Court of Protections will decide whether a patient lives or dies.

Critics point out that while the MCA opened up a chaotic situation in the first place where anyone may claim a patient gave them a verbal “living will” to forgo life-preserving treatment, its inherent problems are only exacerbated by granting the court the power to euthanize patients.[/quote] So, anyone can claim this? Like a complete stranger who happened to be walking past? ...although I should hope that the courts would have the good sense to look into the background history of someone making these claims...

[quote]Furthermore, the MCA makes doctors liable to criminal prosecution, should they refuse to kill their patients in accordance with a “living will” which the Court establishes as existing and valid.
[/quote] The wording of this causes me to ask, by kill do they mean actively or passively? Because there is a big difference between turning off a ventilator and administering a leathal drug or something. (I actually don't know, is active euthanasia legal in England?)

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1045256' date='Aug 17 2006, 07:14 AM']
Makes doctors liable to criminal prosecution, should they refuse to kill patients in accordance with a “living will” ...
[/quote]

how can we survive this way …this is twisted ...

you know there are people who will push this in the US --- and i predict the ACLU would champion a cause like this)

[Ellenita]

[quote]I actually don't know, is active euthanasia legal in England?[/quote]


No, it's not......yet.....but we appear to be on the rocky road leading that way.....it's the logical next step to this legislation.....


[url="http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/burke.html"]http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/burke.html[/url]