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."'

We ran polling on the risk to domestic abuse victims: pretty striking that 69% of people are concerned that domestic abuse victims would be pressured into ending their own lives. And we warn MPs to expect 100s of victims to die each year if the governments own Impact assessment of take up is right.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14821833/Assisted-dying-law-domestic-abuse-victims-coerced.html

I KNOW!!! Why has this been forgotten??? ~because it clearly shows some men can't be trusted not to break the law~

Of course it is!

It's just that we don't have the political will for it.

There's people on this thread who have said about good experiences with palliative care where it's been available. The problem is the sheer lack of access to it.

Of course I see the danger. What I don't see is how this putative danger should trump my right - and those of others in similar situations - to choose the time and manner of our death even if we should be unable physically to do whatever is necessary to achieve the fulfillment of that choice.

Of course I understand not everyone has the will to resist persuasion. But why should the rights of those who do have such a will be ignored in favour of such people?

You agree I have the right to kill myself; to end my own life at a time of my own choosing. Yet you deny this right to someone who is unable, for whatever reason, physical incapacity for example, to perform the necessary act. This seems, on the face of it, discriminatory and cruel, particularly if such a person has a loved-one willing to assist.

Of course you're coming from a good place and motivated by concern for others. I'm suggesting you think more carefully about the balance of concerns here.

OK in a way. I stand by the earlier post, thinking it more applicable to what you say than you allow - probably I was unclear.

But, anyway, I wonder why you think 'those who have little autonomy from coercion' deserve more respect than people like me? I, too, wish no-one to be "guilt-tripped into assisted suicide", as you put it. But why should that concern trump those who choose, freely and willingly, to seek assistance when they want to die but can't quite manage on their own?

What principle do you use to decide priority of concern here? And how is it to be applied? Currently it seems you wish to ignore those like me, in favour of those poor souls who may be coerced. Of course I'm in favour of safeguards; why, though, do you think those needing safeguards have a morally significant priority over people like me? Do I not deserve to have my autonomy safeguarded at all in this situation? Why?

I should point out that someone you love won't be helping you due. The drugs have to be self administered. Here is a reminder of what is planned https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/assisted-dying/assisted-dying-bill/

Thanks for all that you're doing.

I think that the protection of the vulnerable must take precedence over those who see themselves as strong enough to reject pressure. The weakest must not go to the wall because the strong want something that endangers the weak.
It's an ethical choice and I realise that one day I might wish to end my life and not be able to do so. But it is my choice to put myself in that position for the sake of others who are vulnerable. That's about it, really.

I am not a great fan of autonomy. We don't really have though we may imagine we do. We are all driven by circumstance, by what someone else has done that apparently does not impinge on us, but does in subtle ways. I am not free to choose whatever I may like to do (and I hope no-one is ever that free), I have others to consider, those known to me and those who may be affected by what I do who I am not close to.

https://x.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1935099026057150770

Given an example of somebody told they were at end of life, but whose condition greatly improved, Leadbeater argues that if they ‘feel fine’ they can cancel.

Isn’t the point of AD avoidance of future suffering?

It’s not just that she doesn’t acknowledge the problem - she doesn’t seem to understand it.

I should add, that we can do many things that people claim isn't possible, as long as it's considered a priority and has political support. The problem here is that AD has attracted political supporters but palliative care isn't sexy enough to attract supporters. Why? Because AD has the attraction of being a quick fix type of solution whereas palliative care needs long term investment and changes in culture.

Can't disagree with any of that. But where are you going to find the staff? Working in palliative care must be extremely difficult. I couldn't do it and I can't see it being an attractive career path for many people.

Also AD might be a quick fix - and I do get the point about society look for simple solutions to complex problems - but that does not mean it is not the best realistic solution we have.

My dad died a few months ago. He was in a nhs facility for end of life care for three months, transferred there from hospital after being diagnosed with untreatable cancer. He was 91.

This was part of nhs so he did not pay for any of it. He had his own room and the staffing levels were incredible.

He got pain relief towards the end, managed by the on site doctor.

I accept that he/we were extremely lucky. But anyway, this IS possible. People pressing for assisted dying could be pressing for increased funding for care like this.

Where are you going to get the staff? By training them and paying them accordingly. As I say its a long term thing. And will involve cost. Thats why assisted dying is just so problematic because it comes back to the issue that the cost of pallative care makes assisted dying attractive to politicians. And that puts the economically vulnerable at risk, because actually those with funds can get appropriate pallative care if they are willing to fund it privately. And thats where you start to get clash with human rights too.

Thanks for posting this and sorry for your loss.

This is what I dont understand. How is it possible for some part of the NHS to function well and why aren't they asked to provide their expertise.

Instead of which all that even happens with the NHS is the shift managers around, or form new trusts.

Not meaing this as a side track, but if without clearly saying this, so many people are assuming there will never be good palliative care, so assisted dying is therefore the "rational" alternative.

Yes, and i keep being told this level of care isn't practical or usual. In fact, my mum was in the same place in 2020 /21. She had dementia and was there for 15 months in the end - they thought she only had weeks left, which just goes to show, they cant always tell.

I am sure lack of money is an issue, but its like which ever Government it is never gets to grips with this.

And then its almost like becomes a fact.

That the NHS (the UK?) cant afford proper palliative care.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg4xln7gego

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/assisted-dying-vote-kim-leadbeater-third-reading-b2773305.html

It's going to be very tight. That in itself is not good; contentious decisions split down the middle tend to foment bad feeling all round. See also Brexit, Scottish independence, etc

'Based on votes on the amendments as well as known supporters and opponents, the predictive voting model used by opponents of assisted dying gives Ms Leadbeater a majority of up to 15, ranging to a defeat of the Bill by a majority of five.'

This. Who will pay for it?

This. Who will pay for it?

This is always what people say.

Never say lets look at how the money is being spent and maybe make more socially conscious decisions.

As it is today Labour is planning to cut PIP payments.

Talk about stooping to the lowest level of the low.

What is it with Labour always picking on the weakest.

Gives a whole new slant on why they are helping push this through in an unacceptable way.

What a clever money saying option for them.

No doubt in future years there will be handy charts popping up on news programmes showing how much money has been saved by those who "chose" assisted dying.

Not forgetting that the proposed laws been in place Esther Rantzen would be dead by now because of forecast life expectancy.

Agree, also to add that surely AD supporters asking the very question "Who will pay for palliative care?" is admitting that assisted dying is effectively about saving money...

I'm not against AD in principle at all. It's this bill specifically that I have sadly come to disagree with - with its emotively-based, Right Side of History, don't-look-too-closely, don't-think-too-much, any-disagreement-is-bigotry, goalpost-shifting, word-twisting, sneering, brushing-off-questions, we'll-sort-out-all-the-problems-later-and-of-course-there-won't-be-any insouciance.

I'm in support of AD. Which is why this Bill is such a travesty. It's necessary and important that we provide more compassionate choice for people, and choosing death should be possible, but they've fucked it up and the chance won't come round again.

Firstly should never have been a PMB. Secondly needed someone more experienced. Thirdly needed more time. Fourthly needed more willingness to listen and reflect.

Its the worst kind of legislating - showboating, sentiment-fuelled, shallow and defensive. And the consequences if it passes could be horrific.

Its properly reminding me of SNP politics and the GRR Bill etc.