"With the Assisted Dying Bill, Lord Joffe is currently attempting to introduce Britain's first right to die legislation. Would you support such legislation if it included satisfactory requirements?"
David Cameron: “No.”
David Davis: “No. I do not believe that sufficient safeguards could be built into the system to avoid the possibility that patients may have changed their mind or may feel they could be a burden on their family and therefore believe they should die. This is a fraught area of moral and legal complexity but I do not believe people have a right to die.”
Editor's Comment: "Reassuring answers from both contenders. For all the reasons stated in Rowan Williams' recent piece - a right-to-die quickly becomes a duty-to-die for many very disabled, very sick and other vulnerable people. The way to resist creeping euthanasia is to support palliative care and the hospice movement."
What about the withdrawal of treatment and life support? Do you consider that to be euthanasia?
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 10 November 2005 at 14:19
I hope we will soon get back to questions that a prospective leader can actually influence rather than those issues which are really for the conscience of the individual.
Posted by: malcolm | 10 November 2005 at 14:33
Would you prefer more questions about their pants of choice? At least these questions may ell us something about the candidates beliefs and what sort of people they are.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 10 November 2005 at 14:40
Governments can give parliamentary time to issues like this Malcolm so it is relevant.
Selsdon Man: I think every patient deserves food and water.
Posted by: Editor | 10 November 2005 at 14:41
Let's make the Pope leader. I hear he's very 'sound' on these critical party political issues.
Posted by: Gareth | 10 November 2005 at 14:44
No, I meant those issues where a leader will influence the policies of the Conservative party as a whole rather issues like euthenesia which I imagine would be subject to a free vote in parliament.ie specific questions on foreign policy,specific questions about enviromental policy, attitude to devolved parliaments,Northern Ireland,local government etc etc.
Glad to see you've reverted to form James.
Posted by: malcolm | 10 November 2005 at 14:50
One problem today is that life is being extended so that some patients can lead a vegetative existence, far in excess of that which nature would allow. The issue is not black and white. Doctors have to make these life or death decisions whether we or politicians like it or not. Also there are patients, like Dianne Pretty, who are capable of making a rational decision, but unable to carry it out. Why shouldn't someone in that position be able to come to an arrangement with a sympathetic doctor to carry out her wishes?
Posted by: Derek | 10 November 2005 at 14:51
What's happened to the Dave-ometer? Is this one a draw, or have you invented a "joint-win" category?
Posted by: | 10 November 2005 at 14:57
Perhaps the discussion should be less on the issue and on how each leader would handle it in Party management terms.
I pointed out earlier that it was 'modern conservative' David Davis who backed a 3 line whip on the Adoption and Children Bill which made the Party look intolerant and incompetent. An issue which should have been a matter for individual MPs to decide.
How does this squeare with the Davis promise to allow MPs to express themselves?
Equally, how much loyalty would MPs feel towards Davis when he has the backing of a minority of MPs?
Isn't he already seen as a divisive figure?
This is a leadership election after all.
Posted by: michael | 10 November 2005 at 15:00
So far two heavy wins for Davis and four slight draws for Cameron. Tim, whats the point system like the premiership or more like Formula 1?
Posted by: Peter | 10 November 2005 at 15:01
A "joint win" anonymous.
I'm not keeping a running score, Peter!
Posted by: Editor | 10 November 2005 at 15:06
So Tim how do you know wether or not you got to go to penalties?
Posted by: Peter | 10 November 2005 at 15:11
Presumably in the event of a tie, the Editor will share the proceeds of a win between Cameron and Davis?
Posted by: Magnus Magnusson | 10 November 2005 at 15:18
In the event of a tie, a winner is chosen by a song and dance routine.
Posted by: EU Serf | 10 November 2005 at 15:29
I think we getting to know the answer already but we could still be heading to extra time at the moment?
Posted by: Peter | 10 November 2005 at 15:58
Personally I believe this issue is a matter of conscionce and should not be thought of in party political terms.
I think that if a person wants the right to die when they have a terminal illness then we should respect that decision and allow that person to have all treatment withdrawn.
As Conservatives we should be champions of the individual and we should not lecture to people what is the right or wrong thing to do on an issue that only affects them and there loved ones.
Posted by: Jack Stone | 10 November 2005 at 16:31
It affects them, their loved ones and the hospital staff asked to put them down.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 10 November 2005 at 16:32
I have flicked through the explanation notes for the Bill (gotta do something to pass the time) and I would have supported the Bill. As Ive already said in the past, I support euthanasia as long as it is controlled and has the necessary safeguards.
As Jack Stone rightly says, its a matter of conscience not party policy. However it does ask the leader what they think on the important moral decisions.
Posted by: James Maskell | 10 November 2005 at 18:55