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."'

Cordially, I’m not going to engage further with you on this issue. I refer to all the things I’ve already said. I’ve made it clear that we disagree. The end.

Good post @RedToothBrush

Ultimately if the government pass a law on assisted dying, and they fail to safeguard adequately what could happen is a legal challenge to the government under human rights legislation which would ultimately be a scandal and expensive to the state if a court found that the government had been in breach of its human rights obligations.

Not to mention they've killed a bunch of people unlawfully (for which there could potentially prosecutions).

The government should be doing everything they can to cover their own arses and demonstrate they have answers to the fears of groups representing particularly vulnerable individuals. Basically due diligence.

The problem with the bill as it stands is those who are pushing it through parliament are starting to look fucking incompetent on this point. That's really concerning.

Well I don't think I'm twisting your words or engaging in emotional blackmail. I wonder why you say that?

I think you mistaken and have tried to explain why. Yes, I'd be pleased if you changed your views on account of this, and no, based on long experience I don't think it likely you will. But really you shouldn't mistake disagreement - however baldly expressed - for some kind of malevolent or spiteful attack.

I know you disagree with me about assisted suicide. I've set out some arguments why I think it morally and socially desirable. If you think these arguments unsound in some way, I'd be interested to read why. I'm not interested in insulting you or blackmailing you. (Though I am interested in why you seem to think I am.)

'Nicholas Reed was a Labour Councillor, former Oxford don, and led his campaigning organisation ‘EXIT’ from a mansion in ‘Kensington’ (really Pimlico). EXIT were serious about delivering their aims: their board had included luminaries of politics, media and sciences, and at least one doctor and lawyer. Their Chairman was past chair of the Liberals and patron of the trans rights campaign group Press for Change'

Sorry for being dim - was Nicholas Reed the Chairman?

Wow. That was horribly fascinating and chilling. Thank you.

'EXIT rebranded quickly after Reed’s imprisonment, first to the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (its longtime name) and then to Dignity in Dying'

Holy FUCK!!!!

I think I’m going to write to my MP with a link to the blog. The points about the kind of men drawn to this movement are very well made.

Fair point.

The difference being that people are rightly prosecuted for not doing the right thing.

Vote this Friday. My MP, being Scottish, won't vote (I assume).

Others may wish to write to their MP:

https://www.writetothem.com/

Or a form letter in the link here:

https://writeonad.theotherhalf.uk/emailmp

Soooo this👆

In law in England and Wales, life doesn't begin at conception but at birth in terms of law.

That makes it different in terms of threshold of problems with coercion compared to assisted dying because it doesn't fall under obligation for the right to life under the ECHR.

That's not what I am arguing. I am arguing that giving everyone this specific piece of autonomy - the right to end their life when they wish to - impinges on the rights of those who may not wish to end their life but because 'ending your life' is now an option for autonomous being then they can be persuaded to end their life as 'the right thing to do' for whatever reason and be treated as 'autonomous beings' in this regard when, in fact, they are not.
So it is a general, not a personal, automomy I am referring to. In order to protect those who have little autonomy from coercion and the assumption that their life is not worth having we must curtail the autonomy of others who may indeed have the agency to decide they want to die - but because this agency must be available to all it means those without agency can be pushed into a position that they otherwise would not take i.e. they would prefer to stay alive.
So your right to die when you choose must give way to the right of society to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
Certainly a universal principle, but not the one you think I am discussing.
And one should indeed treat others as one would wish to be treated - I wish to live until I die. I do not desire to be guilt-tripped into assisted suicide (though I would not be). I wish the same freedom for everyone else.

Just to add, we are discussing ASSISTED suicide, not the right to die per se. It is the very fact that someone else is brought into the act that makes the moral issues and safeguarding in particular so important. It isn't just about a personal wish to die but how people who wish to assist have got there. Some people will be very happy to assist - the cancer support nurse at the hospital where my dad was diagnosed last year was hard as nails and I can only imagine the sorts of conversations she would have had with him if she could have. It is this third party business that is so concerning.

I get tired of the constant tales of terrible suffering. Most deaths happen after a short illness (or a catastrophic event) and are both peaceful and painless. We need assisted dying like a fish needs a bicycle.
The safeguards against coercion in this Bill seem to assume everyone is as competent as the drafters of it and as full of agency. They seem unable to understand that not everyone is like them.

You can get tired of it all you like. Have you watched someone you love the most in world die a slow painful death.
I have.
Palliative care in Scotland is shite

@dodin I should perhaps add that I am not against you having the right to kill yourself if you wish - you already have that right since suicide is now legal. My problem is with 'assisted dying' and you do not appear to understand that though you may have a will of iron to resist pressure not everyone does and people can be persuaded (coerced) into allowing themselves to be killed when they do not wish to die. It is this I am worried about. You do you and die when you wish, but this Bill will allow people - carers, relatives watching money drip away in care fees, husbands desirous not getting rid of wives who can no longer care for them but need care - to persuade vulnerable people into suicide which will really be murder without penalty.
Can you not see that this is a danger and the Bill as it stands does not address it which is why disable groups and women's groups in particular are afraid of it and want it at least amended in ways that will have some hope of stopping murder under the guise of 'her/his wish was to die'?

I sat by my husband for 18 days waiting for his heart to stop beating after he had a massive cardiac arrest. The care we received from the NHS and our local hospice was amazing and kind. But yes, I know that people die in pain - it is the lack of will and also doctors who are afraid of hastening death with heavy painkillers. But this bill will not alleviate any of that, it will simply replace whatever palliative care now exists with death.
I watched my brother die as well and a close relative has a hereditary degenerating disease - so I know. I am still against assisted dying, it is a carte blanche to get rid of people who are expensive to keep alive.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/26/aiding-abetting-suicide-sinister-past-group-assisted-dying/

A short history of 'Dignity in Dying'.

I'm in favour of assisted dying, I don't think doctors who treat pain should be prosecuted, but I don't support this bill.

Its so ill thought out it was obviously written by activists with an agenda and a very limited world view. For example, there's absolutely no mention in it of women who may be pregnant. Its as if it hasn't crossed their mind that people can be categorised in two groups at once.

We should be campaigning for good palliative caring AT THE SAME TIME as assisted suicide, otherwise there is no incentive to give palliative care. This means vulnerable people are not given reasonable choices because of cost concerns and institutional level coercion.

The two should be walking hand in hand.

The absence of this is one of the key flaws in the proposals.

I agree.

The Chairman was Lord Beaumont, who was also in charge of the Albany Trust in the 1970s and patron of Press for Change in the 1990s.

I totally agree about the need to write in palliative care provision and that it needs to be campaigned for. I'm not sure that the lack of such provision in the Bill is a flaw, I think it might be (unconsciously, perhaps) intentional. The people writing the bill are totally in favour of very ill people being able to commit suicide with help if they need it. It hasn't occurred to the activists that if people can be persuaded to die then palliative care becomes less necessary and thus it will no longer be prioritized (not that it is).

To those who are advocating for better palliative care, do you really think that's possible? I mean with all the challenges we face as a society. Personally I struggle to see that it is.