Assisted Dying Bill passed by slim majority

[smallglassbottle]

https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-starmer-assisted-dying-trump-israel-iran-labour-12593360

@CurrentHun "Please do tell us your ideas for how the coerced will be ‘easily’ able to be identified and helped during this process of ensuring their own death"

Simple. They either won't request Assisted Dying in the first place, or they won't complete the paperwork, or they won't take the medication.

Are you perhaps assuming they will be given the meds then left alone with their evil relatives to be goaded into taking it?
That's not how it works. They have to take it in the presence of doctors, and they have to administer it themselves.

This of course assumes the ability to
realise they are being coerced and
are able to reject that and act against their aggressors

Thats not always the case. In fact rarely so

And presumably their evil aggressors also coerced their medics into giving them a terminal diagnosis too.🤔

If you have 6 months to live, and relatives who hate you enough to want you gone sooner rather than later, you're probably better off with this law in place - at least it gives a mechanism for their coercion to be highlighted so you can bring it to the authorities' attention. The alternative is to continue living with them and being neglected, making your last 6 months more horrific and miserable than they otherwise would be. Or are you saying that, without this law, all the evil aggressive relatives will suddenly become sweet and caring?

Better off with a law that allows you to kill yourself rather than put up with coersive family members?!

Or better off with a police and nhs that provide protection
With a system that provides care
With a system with good palliative care for all

Lets not forget also that diagnosing how long someone has is impossible with surety. Doctors have confirmed this

@DrPrunesqualer "better off with a police and nhs that provide protection. With a system that provides care. With a system with good palliative care"

Better off with all.of the above and assisted dying too.

The best palliative care in the world can't ease the suffering of someone who is slowly starving to death (like my dad, who had oesophageal cancer) or drowning on their own internal bleeding (like my mum, who had leukemia) and even the strongest pain killers become less effective over time. People need a way out at a time of their choosing, to take away the fear and indignity. It's simply cruel to deny people that.

That is not how abusive relationships work though. This line of thinking is dangerously naive, unfortunately.

A feminist think tank, The Other Half, recently calculated that 631 domestic abuse victims may die in a SINGLE YEAR if government estimates of assisted death take up are right.

Disabled people are twice as likely to be victims of domestic abuse. Victims of domestic abuse are already three times more likely to try to take their own life. Domestic abusers already coerce victims into suicide. So why should assisted dying be any different? Stats are taken from here:
https://theotherhalf.uk/poll-death-domestic-abuse

This podcast about the assisted dying debate from The Other Half, has more detail:

"The worst thing potentially that we've ever done to domestic abuse victims": with leading expert in domestic homicide, Prof Jane Monckton Smith.
https://theotherhalf.uk/podcast/v/cjkstw39satrdjrdl6re62rb68gwyw

I don’t think it’s possible to safeguard women, disabled and elderly people, if we legalise assisted dying and offer it on the NHS.

@CurrentHun
There are three vulnerable populations here:
A. People who are in abusive relationships, and don't know it.
B. People who are in abusive relationships, and do know it.
C. Terminally ill people who would like to choose the time and manner of their own death.

I think we can all agree that:

• better funded/focussed education and care would help to minimise the size of group A.
• better funded/focussed police would help to minimise the size of group B.
• better funded care and palliative care would help to minimise the size of group C.

If I have understood you correctly, your argument against Assisted Dying hinges on there being some overlap between A an C.
Without delving into the detail of the think tank's logic, its not clear whether your quoted annual estimate of 631 is the overlap of (A + B) with C, or the overlap of B with C, but it certainly isn't the overlap of A with C because that is unquantifiable.

There will be some overlap between A and C, and you would argue that no matter how small that overlap is, and no matter how much we minimise it with better systems, it should always outweigh the wishes of group C. This is where I disagree.

I’ve been reading about the new Assisted Dying Bill just passed by the Labour government, and I can’t stop thinking about it.

On one hand, I completely understand the relief this could bring to people who are suffering. I’ve seen firsthand (through a family friend) the devastating toll a degenerative disease like MND can take – it’s cruel, undignified, and terrifying. The idea that someone could have a choice, rather than being trapped in a body that no longer functions, is – for some – a comfort. The bill is about people who are mentally capable, in extreme suffering, with terminal diagnoses.

But on the other hand… I’m also feeling incredibly uneasy. The headlines are already popping up about people with Down's syndrome and Austism being caught up in the wider debate, and my heart is in my throat. This wasn’t meant to include vulnerable people who aren’t dying. But once a line like this is crossed, where does it stop? It’s one thing when it’s about terminal illness, another when it creeps into disability, mental health, or economic pressure. It sends such a dangerous message about whose lives are “worth living.”

I know safeguards are being discussed – second opinions, mental capacity checks, etc. But I also know how stretched services are. Even now, getting proper pain management or mental health support is patchy at best. Can we really trust the system to protect the vulnerable when it's already failing them in so many ways?

So yes, I’m conflicted. I want to support bodily autonomy, I want to relieve suffering. But I’m scared too. Scared for those who might feel coerced, scared for those who are already made to feel like a “burden.”

"The headlines are already popping up about people with Down's syndrome and Autism being caught up in the wider debate"

People bring them into the debate when framing the "slippery slope" argument.

They are not relevant to the Assisted Dying bill, because that is only for people with 6 months to live.

There is no slippery slope. If more controversial measures are proposed in future, they will need to go through parliament too. Then we can have that debate. Don't allow them to muddy the waters on this one.

Oregon pioneered assisted suicide. They have not changed their law, although they do now allow people from outside the state to take advantage of it. More people are taking it up for terminal illnesses other than cancer.

Other places have expanded their laws but that is the choice of their populations.

The bill was not "passed by the Labour government". There was a free vote in Parliament and MPS could vote as they saw fit. They would have been aware that the majority of their constituents wanted to see the bill passed. Support is consistently strong across demographics including gender, age, social grade and region. Support for assisted dying for terminally ill people also rises among those who stated they have a disability.

People with Downs syndrome and people with autism cover a wide spectrum. Some will have capacity to make a decision and should not be discriminated against if they are terminally ill and want to make that choice. Others will lack capacity and the bill does not permit them to choose. Unfortunately some who have capacity may be denied a choice for fear the decision could be debated in court.

And let’s not ignore the rather convenient financial upside for the state if people over 60 start feeling nudged—or guilt-tripped—into opting for euthanasia instead of claiming their hard-earned state pension. Funny how that works, isn’t it?

Huh? There is nothing in the Assisted Dying bill that aims it at "people over 60'. It is aimed at people with 6 months to live.

Instead of viewing it as a "slippery slope", people should see it as a series of locked gates, with each gate being bigger and more tightly locked than the previous one. We are just at the first gate, and your imagination has leaped several gates ahead. Bizarre.

There is good support for the bill across all ages, including the elderly. The state pension is miserly - and taxed. The bigger beneficiary would be private pension schemes. There might be a bit of extra inheritance tax, you forgot that. I have to survive another few years so there is no inheritance tax on the house deposit gifted to my kid.

Just going to leave this important BBC article up here. In short, it says that police forces in the UK are known to vary wildly in their response to coercive control. Because of this women are in every way suffering and dying as a result. Despite well documented evidence of this criminal behaviour, their abusers are not even being charged by police- let alone convicted.
And yet some people seem to feel very confident that we can introduce assisted dying here and somehow these abusive men won’t be able to exploit these professional attitudes to make sure that their victims die?

Or do some people just not care that this absolutely will happen? This is the actual police we are talking about who are not acting on abuse- not a panel including a social worker, which I think is where the Bill is at at the moment with ‘safeguards’.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj0mzmqvp6zo

@CurrentHun As previously posted (24/06/2025 07:31), if the group of people who qualify for Assisted Dying and the group of people who are unaware that they are being coercively controlled do over-lap, the overlap is unquantifiable.

The lady in your article wasn't in either group, because she a) wasn't terminally ill and b) recognised that she was being controlled and got out of the situation.

We all care about both groups, but you are letting your concern over one group disproportionately blind you to the very real needs of the other.

I get the impression that a lot of the hardcore supporters of assisted dying really don't care. The victims of coercive control seem to be regarded as unfortunate but necessary collateral damage. I don't understand the lack of empathy.

I think my empathy goes firstly to those who are suffering unnecessarily with drawn out deaths who would prefer a quick end.

I don’t really get the prioritising of future potential victims of coercion over current suffering.

I do understand concerns but there’s a long list of improvements I’ve seen that some people think should occur to social care, palliative care, coercive control etc before assisted dying can even be considered. So decades of delay or possibly never?

I don’t imagine we will ever be in a place that we all agree even if society was perfect. Some people are fundamentally opposed for religious reasons for example.The majority of people are in favour of assisted dying being a choice for the terminally ill and that is what will happen whether on this bill or a future one. Joys of democracy.

When the Assisted Dying bill is approved, we should all be just as concerned for people with controlling relatives who might pressurise them not to access it as for those who might be pressurised the other way. It is just as likely, and probably more so, especially where there is religious influence.

The bottom line is that it has to be a personal decision.

There will also be cases where it is the controlling partner who is terminally ill and choosing to end their own suffering, in which case this legislation can give some relief to carers who are the victims of their control.

@Noodledog does not seem to have any empathy for the suffering of the terminally ill who wish to end their lives. For the hardcore opponents of assisted dying they dont matter and present suffering does not compare to the possibility of future suffering.

Coercive control operates in more than one way and encouraging a dying relative to suffer so, e,g you continue to draw their pension/ run down their savings or you reduce the inheritance tax you pay are entirely possible. It would be in my financial interest to keep my husband alive, I would not do that to him if he was eligible for this and wanted to take it up. No decent person would do that.

So decades of delay or possibly never?

Yes. Because as a society in the UK we are not ready for this. Because the risks to the lives of vulnerable people of this law being enacted are way way too high. Because palliative care already isn’t consistently provided in a high quality way as things are.

Because making some people with financial means privileged to be able to make a genuine choice at the end of their life (by this law being introduced), will also have the effect of removing choice for other more vulnerable people who are entirely dependent on public services for their care and support.

Because this law will give abusers new tools to use for coercion which as a society we are alteady failing to deal with. 2-3 UK women die a week due to male violence.

And my conscience can’t accept that. I have nothing against assisted dying philosophically, but as a society we are already not accepting and supporting of vulnerable and/or disabled people who want to live with dignity.

Look at the cuts the government wants to impose to PIP and the other disability benefits simply to save money- it’s not because these people don’t need the support. PIP is already very hard to get, with a 0% fraud rate by the government’s own figures. It’s just that too many people are now ill and disabled in our ageing society with poor public health and a rising retirement age.

Making cuts like these will be a false economy anyway, if money is all that the government seemingly care about- pushing 250-150,000 people into poverty doesn’t come cheap for the other public services that will have to try to pick up the damage from that. Adding in legal assisted dying into this complicated mess is a very frightening prospect.

I've rarely seen it better summarised ...

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree, because your logic doesn't stack up for me.

I haven’t said anything illogical or untrue. You just don’t agree with me, and don’t seem to care that inevitably, less privileged and/or already abused people will be dying as human collateral once this new law comes in.

That outcome is too high a price for society to pay so that a different group of relatively more fortunate people can have the legal right to a genuine choice in how they die.

You're just repeating yourself, and haven't engaged with any reasoning. Its the Mumsnet equivalent of putting your hands over your years and singing "la la la". Your arguments are illogical for reasons outlined in previous posts that you didn't respond to.