Coercion & assisted dying/suicide: why is it suddenly recognisable when it isn't in DV?

[aweegc]

Ok I would post this on AIBU but I've gone through a coercive relationship and I'm still not strong enough to deal with "robust" responses.

First, the issue I'm raising isn't about death, it's about the sudden ability of everybody to recognise coercion.

I'm honestly aghast that every proponent of the upcoming bill responds to the possibility of coercion with some version of "doctors will be trained to recognise it" or "it has been shown to virtually never occur in the other countries that has assisted dying/suicide".

1. We have a law against coercive control, unlike many other countries. And according to the number of prosecutions of it, it barely ever occurs.

1. Coercion can be defined differently across jurisdictions.

1. If coercion isn't illegal in a country, how is data about its occurrence collected?

1. Does anybody talking about coercion know that there's MASSIVE manipulation involved, and by the very definition if it, someone deeply manipulated generally doesn't know they are. They won't (be able to) admit it and they are likely to demonstrate loyalty to the abuser in many cases, for a multitude of reasons.

I could go on.

But apparently, doctors will ask patients if they're being coerced. They'll know from talking to them.

I mean if it's that bloody simple, why aren't all the women (usually) in abusive relationships pinpointed and offered significant help? Why aren't all the abusive partners being located via this straightforward and quick method and being prosecuted?

I mean basically, the only surefire way to get away from a coercive partner is to be in the last 6 months of your life, and ask to be able to die.

I'm so disgusted by this lack of discussion.

Oh and all the "Look, just because some people might be coerced, that shouldn't remove the right of others to end their life."

And "Most families are loving, the idea there are lots of people wanting to have their relatives die is silly."

I have to admit to being totally triggered. I suffered multiple health issues while with my ex and at no point did he help me. Many times I thought I should just die. Never did I think I was being coerced, abused etc and I'd have definitely not given anybody that idea. In fact I was invested in presenting an image of him that he wanted the world to see. So I was frequently congratulated on having such a lovely husband.

I think it’s a really difficult one and I completely agree that coercion is incredibly difficult to spot, and not easily identifiable unless someone was to simply say “X told me I have to” for example which as you say would very rarely happen. It is exactly this concern that has so many people worried about the prospect of assisted dying, I’ve seen lots of discussion about it in the news over the last few weeks, there’s simply no perfect way to accurately and consistently identify coercion and so the risk the bill could bring if it does pass is huge.

I think a lot of people have tunnel vision and are unable to see other viewpoints, especially if they haven't got the experience.

They are naive in that they can't imagine how the bill could be exploited for financial gain or malice.

You're right, coercive control often involves gaslighting and abusers gaslight everyone not just their victims. It can happen gradually and be difficult to spot.

The thing is though who are the experts on coercion? The people at the coal face: DV charities. It IS possible to get people to talk about it, but they're not speaking up - which may be because they want you to "stay in their lane", understandable - but they're also not being invited to speak ONLY to that point.

And the arguments about "we shouldn't stop people from doing it because a few people might be coerced" is surely absolutely contrary to safeguarding. We wear seatbelts, even though most people aren't killed when they're not wearing one. We don't allow opposite sex adults around changing children, even though most adults aren't paedophiles.

The bill could be about anything for me, the fact that victims of coercive, manipulative behaviour who are facing serious illness are literally being victimised a second time by all these discussions brushing the complexities of it off, is abhorrent. The bill could be about the right to eat bananas, that's not the issue. It's offensive to suggest that suddenly all cases of coercion will be picked up because a bill about something else is brought forward, when the actual law related to that behaviour barely criminalises anybody.

I don’t think it is lack of recognition. Even with recognition and evidence gathering it is very hard to meet the cps threshold to prosecute for it. There is support and many agencies will spot it but it’s hard to get it across the line, even when police are trying really hard. Because it happens behind closed doors and mostly verbally you can’t evidence it.

The other issue is, if you can’t get a prosecution for it and you have children, there is nothing to stop the post separation control and abuse continuing under the guise of communicating about the children. Family courts are very poor at dealing with anything other than serious cases of physical abuse so enable this controlling behaviour to continue.

And the arguments about "we shouldn't stop people from doing it because a few people might be coerced" is surely absolutely contrary to safeguarding. We wear seatbelts, even though most people aren't killed when they're not wearing one. We don't allow opposite sex adults around changing children, even though most adults aren't paedophiles.

Yes but we do allow people to sign "do not resuscitate"/advance decisions to turn down specific treatment, even though they could just as easily be coerced into that. So for some life and death decisions, we do allow them despite the potential for coercion. I've not ever seen anyone say that because of the risk of coercion, no one should have the right to sign an advance directive.

I watched my father die of dementia in his early sixties. For me, there's just no argument that can be made which would persuade me that it wouldn't have been better for him (and for us) for him to have died peacefully and with dignity five years before he actually died.

If I ever found myself in a station like that again with a loved one, and I could guarantee my safety, their consent and a peaceful method, I'd probably kill them myself, that's how strongly I feel about this issue.

Look, I get where you're coming from. I was the victim of horrific coercive control when I was 16-18 and it took years to unpick it all.

But I also know those situations are the exception not the norm, and I also know too many people who have suffered far too much for too long when we wouldn't let a dog live like that.

I agree that the liklihood of anyone spotting coercion is going to be very, very low.

I think people in favour of this bill need to be honest and say safeguarding measures will be in place, but will unlikely be robust enough to ensure no errors as no other safeguarding measures perfect. However, on balance they feel the keeping people who want to die alive, causes more harm overall, than allowing people who want to die, to die, with some margin of error as a consequence

I think that people in favour of the bill think there will be sacrifices and they're ok with that.

I'm afraid to say this will be the truth of it

Are you ok with the fact that some people will be coerced into signing DNARs, or do you think they should be banned?
Are you ok with the fact some people will be coerced into getting abortions, or do you think they should be banned?

I think the harms from not having assisted dying are greater than the harms from having it. Just as I think the harms from removing the ability of people to sign advance decisions or refuse treatment are greater than the harms from some people potentially being coerced into making those decisions. Same for abortion.
Plenty of people will fall down on the other side of all of those, which is fine. But people against this bill are also ok with the sacrifices and harms that come from not having it. Neither option is without harm.

Coercive relationships exist. They always have and always will. That shouldn't stand in the way of medical progress adapting to the lives we lead and the deaths we have.

There are safeguards in place in all medical situations, and in some cases the safeguards make the hurdle really high. I'd say that was the case in this bill (particularly the English version, the safeguards are lower in Scotland where the current iteration does not include a 6-months left of life requirement).

It's not just a doctor casually asking if you're being coerced and then when you say no, immediate euthanising you... The doctors need to be satisfied you are giving informed consent, as they would for any treatment (or refusal/withdrawal of treatment). Part of that is considering outside influences and pressures but it's not the whole picture.

I'm concerned that this bill won't remain as it is for long and as has happened in other countries, the criteria will change.

I'm concerned that money won't be put into palliative care when cheaper options are available. That Drs will pressure people to die rather than use expensive resources.

That children who don't want care costs to eat into their inheritance will apply pressure to their parents.

That the government will start to apply the bill to people with expensive illnesses and that this will be accepted by society as it is in other countries.

That it will apply to mental health issues, that problems that could be alleviated with support, are directed towards death.

That abused women will be euthanised because their partners don't want to care for them.

There are myriad reasons why I think this bill is disastrous for society.

An abortion is not murder and Drs make the decision regarding a DNR irrespective of forms - they're only done during cardiac arrest. This bill could end up becoming a cull of the vulnerable in society.

Exactly this. It's abhorrent. I wish they'd just be honest enough to say it.

I totally agree with you op. I've not been in an abusive relationship but I am baffled as to how many people believe that doctors will be able to spot this and no mistakes will be made.

And I could have burst into tears on hearing the result of the vote....so many vulnerable people who will now be even more at risk

And women are often coerced into having an abortion....two doctors also sign that off

I hear you. I am especially worried since the pandemic when the caring NHS put swathes of DNR on hundreds of people without their consent or knowledge. The same doctors who did that will also be the ones signing off on assisted dying. I don't trust them an inch.

I don't see how this is relevant to the bill. People who can apply for assisted dying have to be terminally ill with only 6 months left to live. In these 6 months, they have to get 2 independent doctors and a judge to approve the request. They'll be dead by the time it's approved or have a couple months left at most, so really it won't make much difference at all?

The people who should have benefited from this are those with extremely painful conditions who might still have years left to endure. It's a useless bill.

@username8348

Great post, thank you for laying it out so clearly. This bill is done with the best of intentions but I believe very quickly "a nice clean death" will become the answer to messy problems that sociey does not want to face up to (or does not want to pay for) to solve properly. And I do believe women, because of our longer lives and because we are socially undervalued, will bear the brunt.

Other women are coerced into not having abortions.

I seriously think more people will be coerced by family or religious leaders into not ending their lives when they wish than are coerced into doing so sooner.

Yes women are forced and coerced into continuing with a pregnancy...but that doesn't require two doctors to sign it off. When doctors are signing off an abortion, what do they actually do to check if a woman is being coerced?

A wee note to people. I very, very specifically said that I wasn't posting about being pro or anti the bill, the bill could be about bananas as that wasn't my issue. It was the lack of proper debate about recognising coercion, whilst dismissing it as a minor concern under the assumption that it will be easily detected in the dying, when it's not in living.

I also said I've been abused.

Did you miss those two points in your excitement to tell me I'm wrong, even though I was talking about the recognition of abuse, not assisted death? Or did you actually mean to imply that my 16 years of abuse, literally doesn't count because you witnessed something horrible?

So please, if you want to post about how extreme, long term manipulative abuse isn't as bad as a bad death, which is essentially what you're saying, do it somewhere else. I don't like trauma competitions anyway, but to do it in this thread when I've disclosed that I've been abused for years is pretty low.

I absolutely agree that the issue of coercion and abuse has not been discussed enough....seems like it's been glossed over

And coercion can be so subtle.. it isn't necessarily someone forcing someone to do it or being outwardly bullying...you can imagine someone being diagnosed and a coercive family member pretending to be terrified to watch them suffer and guilt tripping them.