Assisted dying and coercion

[ArabellaScott]

This is live right now, so I'm not sure how well linking to it will work. Copy-pasting below, aswell.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cy5k0qyled2t

'Rachel Clarke, a palliative care doctor, opts to answer a question about coercion and whether some MPs are right to feel concerned about this when considering the bill. (Earlier, MPs heard how medical and clinic staff are trained in safeguarding, though a retired GP acknowledged coercion was hard to spot.)
Clarke says she'd "strongly push back" on the suggestion coercion is something all medical staff are trained in spotting.
"I'm the kind of doctor who believes there is nothing to be gained by sugar-coating reality...about shortcomings, failings, areas where my profession the rest of the NHS are getting things wrong", she tells MPs.
"It is my clinical experience that not only are the majority of doctors not necessarily trained in spotting coercion explicitly, they're often not trained explicitly in having so-called advanced care planning conversations with patients around the topic of death and dying."'

Exactly my view.

For me personally, I have always believed (even back when I was a fresh healthy young thing) that I wouldn't want to suffer a long-term illness or be a burden to my loved ones. I believed, and still believe, that people should have the choice to step off this mortal coil in a time/manner that allows us dignity and peace.

But this bulldozed-through, good fee-fees only, no wrong-thinkers allowed, goalpost-shifting, break down the safeguards, let's sort out all the nasty details later bill? This is not the way.

My post was about coercion. I think not wanting to be a burden to my family will be read as coercion from them. This bill and the care industry as a whole, the only person that matters is the person needing care the needs and terribly damaging affects on the family are seen as completely irrelevant. I've seem people absolutely broken to the point of being suicidal from caring for family. Being a carer is even thought to shorten your life. If I was end of life, the affect on my family would be a big consideration for me, massive consideration. If I wanted assisted dying, I suspect if I even dared to mention that I was worried about the suffering of my family, this would be read as coercion and deem me unsuitable.

I do also get that factoring the impact on others into this might put pressure on people to consider their families when they don't want to die. Coercion and choosing to die a little bit earlier because you don't want to burden your family through entirely free choice are different things though. I know not choosing to pop off because you are inconveniencing people might ultimately look selfish against those who do though.

I think coercion is much more likely to be the other way. In that people will be coercied NOT to choose an assisted death.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/21/legalising-assisted-dying-england-and-wales-may-hamper-suicide-prevention-work-says-adviser

A thoughtful view from Prof Louis Appleby:

'The government’s suicide prevention adviser has said that legalising assisted dying in England and Wales may cause major issues in suicide prevention work if the state effectively concedes that taking one’s own life should be allowed in some circumstances.
... Appleby said he did not consider himself an avowed opponent of legalising assisted dying, but said it would radically change the long-held consensus that it was right to try to prevent all suicides.
“The suicide prevention consensus is a remarkable thing,” he said. “As society, we are signed up to the idea that we should do all we can to help [suicidal people] get through. It’s very rarely questioned. Society accepts that it has a role in protecting people who are vulnerable and at risk. We look after our friends when they’re in crisis. We sit up all night with them. We look out for strangers on a bridge.
“My concern is that if we decide as a society, if we concede the principle that people who want to take their own lives should be helped through that crisis and out the other side, then conceding that ground is a huge step.”'

Domestic violence victims must be included in the assisted dying debate, campaigners say
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/22/domestic-violence-victims-assisted-dying-debate-coercive-control

BEAT have written an open letter expressing their concerns.

An amendment to exclude people with eating disorders was voted down yesterday. As.was one about palliative care consultation. This is like watching the GRR go through Scotparl - all the protests about how much safeguarding would be built into the Bill, only for it all to be inexplicably voted out.

www.beateatingdisorders.org.uk/news/letter-to-the-government-on-the-terminally-ill-adults-end-of-life-bill/

Women make up roughly 75% of people with eating disorders.

A sobering warning from a former member of a euthanasia board in the Netherlands:

'Much about the debate in the UK reminds me of our experience in the Netherlands, including Leadbeater’s insistence that the rules will be strict. Our safeguards were presented that way too. Euthanasia campaigners assured us that it would only apply to a well-defined group of patients. It is through bitter experience, through being on the front-line here in the Netherlands for almost two decades, that I have concluded that it is not possible to regulate and restrict assisted dying safely in the way its advocates claim.'

https://archive.ph/lFluk

Thanks for the updates. I've been awol so just catching up.
From Arabella's link

Extraordinarily, every single amendment relating to Clause 1 of the Bill, which aimed to strengthen the proposed safeguards, was rejected. Ahead of second reading, I recall Leadbeater trumpeting her ‘High Court safeguard’, which she said made her legislation the strictest in the world. Leadbeater has now said she is going to drop this safeguard and replace it with panels of experts, likely resulting in them being made up of supporters of assisted dying, as those who do not support the practice would not wish to be involved. The bill is being weakened, not strengthened

Her determination to silence voices that aren't even opposing the Bill per se, but saying, hang on a minute what about this, is increasingly concerning. Her refusal to listen and to continually exclude is really quite sinister.

If I were to come within such legislation ( which is quite possible in a few years) I'd like it to be with all possible safeguards in place.

I'd like robust checks that I'm ready to shuffle of my mortal coil. A law that doesn't protect me from various vultures with their own agendas, dressed up as putting me out of my misery, is not good law.

Also, how does Leadbeater envisage protecting an isolated vulnerable woman with disabilities subject to d.v. / coercion and control? Who speaks up for that woman who claims that she wants to die, when really she wants release from the person who controls her daily life?

There's acceptance that she will be collateral damage from certain quarters. Which speaks a lot about the mind set of those individuals.

Absolutely. It's the refusal to countenance any doubt that really worries me.

And as I've said, I think AD may well be a positive thing if it's done properly, and for that the legislation needs to be scrutinised heavily, from every direction.

Seems to me that AD has been identified as being on TRSOH, part of the Bundle of Righteous things, therefore part of the Can-never-be-questioned Progressive Omnicause. Its adherents are therefore justified in committing pious fraud, in dismissing or even demonising any who do not wholesale embrace the Bundle.

We spoke to Professor Jane Monckton Smith - expert on domestic homicide- she had a stark warning for MPs that this could potentially be the worst thing we ever do for victims
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=unuXZqm_uT0

The bill committee MPs will consider whether to train doctors in detecting domestic abuse this week. They've rejected all safeguards for coercion so far though...

People don't even understand it. They think they will be injected, like when a dog is put to sleep. But you have to take the meds yourself somehow. That's not going to be easy.

WomanDaresTo That's a very clear explanation of the concerns around coercion and domestic abuse from Prof Jane Monckton Smith. Frightening that between 3 and 9 women a week are thought to die from homicides staged as suicides due to d.v.

And that's with a coroner and police system in place.

There will be no investigation in many cases if women's deaths seemingly fall under the AD provisions.

The bill committee MPs will consider whether to train doctors in detecting domestic abuse this week. They've rejected all safeguards for coercion so far though...

Have they accepted ANY safeguards at all?

My worry is that they are so convinced that their cause is righteous that they simply cannot conceive of any drawbacks or grey areas or nuance. They assume any questions, concerns, or criticisms are on the wrong side of history, and therefore reject them.

It's like watching the Scotparl discuss the GRR Bill - all the very sensible, very reasonable amendments being struck down, one by one. Of course there was no need to suggest rapists should be excluded from women's prisons! The very idea is a transphobic dog whistle!

And ... if you build it, they will come. See Isla Bryson, et al.

In the space of four weeks we have gone from the safest safeguards ensured by signoff by a High Court Judge, through a solid safeguard of two doctors and a psychiatrist to a reasonable safeguard of a responsible panel. What's next? A social worker?

Do me a fucking favour! You're going to end up with any fucking toe-rag can sign this off. If Ms Leadbetter cannot see how bad this is becoming, a grownup needs to have a word in her ear.

Wonderful Prof Stock is writing a book on this. Unfortunately I suspect it will be in law by then.

“Women’s Aid is concerned that the Assisted Dying Bill, a Private Members Bill currently being debated in Parliament, lacks effective safeguarding of domestic abuse survivors and fear that survivors may be coerced by their perpetrator into ending their own life if these are not improved.

Coercive and controlling behaviour, which is designed to make a person dependent on their perpetrator by isolating them from support, exploiting them, and depriving them from independence, is at the heart of domestic abuse. This form of abuse is closely linked to domestic homicide and suicide in the context of domestic abuse, meaning that there are real risks that without effective safeguards in place, the Assisted Dying Bill could leave survivors in an extremely vulnerable position. This is particularly the case for older survivors and disabled survivors, who may have to depend on their perpetrator as their care giver or who, after years of abuse destroying their self-worth, may feel like the word is a better place without them.

It is important to recognise that disabled people are more likely to experience domestic abuse and coercive control, and that measures need to be in place to protect them. Disabled survivors and those with terminal illnesses can experience medical coercion, which may involve being pressured into signing DNRs or feeling that they must refuse treatments. Women’s Aid agrees with concerns raised by Stay Safe East over the insufficient safeguards in the Bill to prevent perpetrators from making convincing cases for end of life, in the guise of ‘carer’, especially in instances where the survivor is unable to speak, make proper judgement, or have learning difficulties.

We support the positions, and work of, Centre for Women’s Justice and Stay Say East in relation to this Bill. It’s current drafting, there have not been sufficient measures taken to prohibit abuse and to ensure the protection of survivors.”

https://www.womensaid.org.uk/womens-aid-highlight-the-impact-of-the-assisted-dying-bill-on-those-experiencing-domestic-abuse/

(This WA is WAFE ie Women's Aid Federation England)

https://x.com/ddhitchens/status/1896915408474788141

Ten Labour MPs backed an amendment to stop doctors raising assisted suicide with children (who aren’t eligible for the procedure).

Kim Leadbeater: “We shouldn’t prohibit open conversation with terminally ill young people…this creates openness.”

The amendment was defeated 13-8.

Well that's loud and clear IwantToRetire.

Kim Leadbeater is a supporter of Women's Aid accordng to her Facebook.
I wonder if she is listening to WA and taking heed?

Not that I hold out much hope, given her past performances in sticking her fingers in her ears.

Sorry eatfigs posted before I saw your post.
Holy shit.
That is truly frightening.

Leadbetter also has said today that doctors are obliged to suggest AD to the terminally ill.

It just gets more and more macabre with every passing day. And the supporters double down and double down.

x.com/historykev/status/1896862370632446190

Also:

https://x.com/spectator/status/1896922772263071791

'The committee voted by 13 to 8 to exclude specific provision on the face of the bill for support for those with Down’s syndrome when initiating conversations on assisted suicide and death. '

Kim Leadbeater is a supporter of Women's Aid accordng to her Facebook.

I wonder if she is listening to WA and taking heed?

I wonder if they sent her a copy.

What is depressing is that none of the main stream media are bothering to report any of this any more.

I fear it will just slip through.

I fear it will slip through also.

I've got someone coming to do an assessment this morning from adult services.
I keep thinking about what they would be saying if this Bill becomes Leadbeater Law.