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."'

Just bumping this as we found out this week that the Westminster bill allows doctors to propose assisted dying to children - although not going as far as the Holyrood bill which allows 16year olds to be given assisted death.

Particularly concerning given evidence on eating disorders in committee - all those given assisted death so far are women and a third are in their teens and twenties.

MPs can amend the bill but have very limited time to do it, and there are staggering issues to contend with- former No 10 legal affairs bod Nikki Da Costa told us just some of them:

x.com/OtherHalfOrg/status/1888529471503745237

JFC, Woman.

'1. The Assisted Dying bill has incredible power concealed within, such as to amend the foundational act for the NHS so that the Secretary of State and the government no longer have a duty to maintain or improve the health of the public.'

Fucking WHIT?!

Aye! And as Nikki DC says, anything tricky the bill leaves to a "power". Like the drugs that will be used (necessarily experimental) to cause people's deaths.

And MPs can't rely on civil service to do the research on what's best - they have to do it themselves, because this is a Private Members Bill which has no civil service support, no human rights assessment, no equalities impacts.

I'm appalled. This is so fucking bad.

Is there any chance it won't go through?!

The more I read the more concerned I become. Please ditch this bill.

Rushed through in - what, four, five months?!

Very sobering when you think on the upskirting voyeurism bill, which was also a private member’s bill and how that took from intro June 2018 to royal assent in Feb 2019.

That bill was a no brainier and no lives were on the line.

It highlights that the assisted dying bill, a much more complex and weighty bill, is going at ludicrous speed

The drugs aren’t experimental. They are the same drugs used for decades for lethal injection execution for injected/pump trigger assisted suicide or euthanasia with their oral versions used in assisted suicide in other countries.

There are numerous studies and statistics on common complications, time to die, and failure rates.

I hope it won’t go through but I think it’s a done deal. It’s part of the attack on the elderly and disabled.

In general, as I understand it, when they are in distress men are more likely to engage in violence toward other people or objects, while women turn it in on themselves in some way.

I genuinely wonder why this has gained traction in the way it has. I guess the question of whether there is a chance this won’t go through is parliamentary process - so I think, I might be wrong, that it goes back to the House of Commons for a third reading (could be defeated here if enough MPs have changed their minds) and then has to go to the House of Lords for three readings again. Then it needs Royal Assent.
I do not know enough about parliamentary process to know how likely it is that a bill would not pass in the House of Lords when it has passed in the House of Commons, or how likely it is to be defeated at third reading in the HoC. But these stages still need to happen.

Following the Sandie Peggie Tribunal and the ravings of Dr. Upton (now working in psychiatry) I'm incredibly worried about having someone like him being involved in a patient saying that they want to die. Especially a Terfy patient.

Combined with a new Health Minister here who thinks that when someone thinks they are a Llama we must treat that belief with respect.

Newsnight tonight has a discussion on the Bill at 10.30. Will also be on iPlayer.

There seems to be huge money funding their campaigns and lobbying.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2egl17pvldo

Now talking about removing the judge requirement and replacing with a dedicated panel. And expanding provision to people with Parkinson's.with 12 months to live.

I genuinely wonder why this has gained traction in the way it has.

On.the face of it AD is a potentially compassionate and merciful idea. Lots of people support avoiding suffering.

The problems are in that it's been hastily thrown together, badly drafted, people raising concerns about safeguarding apparently dismissed - or worse, vilified - the processes have been ropey, research inadequate, and its all being rushed through far too fast. With potentially utterly horrific consequences.

Looks.like showboat legislation made.by politicians who can't be arsed doing the boring, dirty work of writing good law and most importantly are so.brittle they're unable to listen and consider questions, concern, and dissent. I recognise that from watching the SNP smash through various shit laws up here.

Self righteous justification is dangerous.

https://x.com/shiny02/status/1889333486512738610

Content warning.

This chap has a less charitable interpretation of the issues involved than my post above, tbh.

Ms Leadbeater has described the amended plan as a "judge plus" system, arguing that it strengthens safeguards against pressure or coercion as it gives an "enhanced role for professionals such as psychiatrists and social workers".

However, assisted dying critics say safeguards have been watered down, with Tory former minister Danny Kruger calling the change "a disgrace".

Conservative shadow crime minister Matt Vickers told Sky News "huge concerns" about safeguarding is the reason assisted dying is not currently legal, but said those who brought forward the bill "said all those safeguards were in place".

He added: "This is one of the things on which this idea was sold, on which it was taken forward and put through the House of Commons.
"And now we see that there's wriggling on it, that they're changing some of those safeguards and checks that were meant to be put in place. This was meant to be foolproof. It needs to be foolproof because it needs to protect vulnerable elderly people."

Labour MP Diane Abbott said the bill was "rushed, badly thought out legislation" which "needs to be voted down", while former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron said "even the weak safeguards that existed are being dropped".

The proposal will be voted on by a committee of MPs who will begin going through the bill line by line on Tuesday, however, the new amendment on High Court judges is not expected on the first day.

The committee, selected by Ms Leadbeater, has a 14-9 majority in favour of assisted dying based on November's vote.

https://news.sky.com/story/assisted-dying-high-court-would-not-need-to-approve-cases-under-change-to-bill-13306930

Can that last paragraph be right?

The committee, selected by Ms Leadbeater, has a 14-9 majority in favour of assisted dying based on November's vote.

How is it parliamentary possible for a lone MP to set up a Committe to asses a bill they have proposed?

Surely the whole point of a committee it to be able to assess proposed bills and should therefore be neutral.

How is it parliamentary possible for a lone MP to set up a Committe to asses a bill they have proposed?

@IwantToRetire I think it's because it is a Private Members Bill (PMB), so different rules apply. I'm not an Administrative Law specialist, so it's just my view.

It went through the Committee stage to decide if it should proceed or not. If there had been no opposition to it, an Unopposed Bill Committee would have been established. It's more of a nod through stage where Leadbeater would have explained why the legislation was needed and answered any questions of clarification.

However, there was Opposition by way of Petition to the House. So an Opposed Bill Committee needed to be set up. In brief, it's task is more in depth, it needs to call witnesses for and against etc and go through the fine detail in a comprehensive way. In theory anyway.

It seems that Leadbeater whose Bill it is, was then made Chair of said Committee, hardly a neutral choice, and she then nominated a fairly unpopular Danny Kruger from the Conservatives to lead the opposition to the Bill. Give him his due, I think he's sticking with it and criticising things like her wish to keep it a private hearing rather than open to the public. (Tactic of NHS Fife springs to mind).

Also, as Chair, who can then call the shots, her exclusion of various disability groups and interested parties who wanted to give evidence has been opposed by him and others, including the legal and medical profession.

As Leadbeater is Chair, she pretty well controls the narrative as to witnesses, who to include/exclude. and the members of the Committee seem to have the majority of those who have previously expressed support for assisted dying, rather than neutral MPs.

It's really unusual for an important piece of legislation to come from a PMB. Those who are cynical about it view it as a tactic to circumvent the usual way legislation is made, and achieve the wanted outcome. There certainly seems to be a big rush to get it all done and dusted without strong safeguards. Personally, I do feel it is a stacked deck.

Happy to be corrected on the above.

@larklane17 thanks for that explanation. It will take a bit of time to absorb.

Just makes me realise that I am really uninformed about the political process in this country. Or that what I assumed were basic conventions, just dont always apply. Why?

From news reports the fact that this latest amendment was announced so late has, in itself made a lot of MPs who were prepared to give the balance of doubt for the bill, are now hesitating.

Less charitable explanation but that will be the impact, I think, bluntly put.

Thank you to the posters who gave me some thoughts on why this has gained traction the way it has. I just had a brief look at the various lobby groups for this, and I haven’t had time to look at their funding. It seems to me a kind of eugenics to get rid of people who are not functioning in the way society thinks they ought to, under the guise of compassion, for economic reasons. Because the alternative would be providing care which the health and social care system is struggling to do. But it’s dressed up as autonomy and compassion.

I also had a look at the Scottish bill as I was curious about who is intended to sign off assisted suicide given the changes in the English proposals. Two doctors. That’s it. It is also a private member’s bill (which again raises the question of why private member’s bills are being used for legislation that fundamentally changes the role of the state (given that we have a national health service) and the relationship between government and citizen. It’s impossible to get a GP appointment where I am and I doubt my GP even knows me or my circumstances. There’s no second chamber in Scotland which means that it’s just got to get through Parliament (whereas in England it has to get through HoC and HoL).

I can foresee a situation where the English bill fails and the Scottish one doesn’t and this is seen as progressive.

i also read that when people are asked about assisted suicide support falls, because they don’t actually understand that assisted dying is an active process of someone ending their life not just withdrawing medical treatment which would prolong life.

Let's hope Westminster do another article 50.

The Scottish govt is actively harming Scotland. Reckless, arrogant, and impossible to dissuade from making shit law after shit law.

Good article here from Sarah Ditum.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2025/02/how-the-assisted-dying-bill-could-unleash-male-violence

https://endoflifebill.co.uk/are-the-safeguards-adequate/

Website here set up by Dr Rajiv Shah, looking at some of the relevant issues.

Includes '10 main concerns'

https://endoflifebill.co.uk/10-main-points-of-concern/

From that site:

endoflifebill.co.uk/are-the-safeguards-adequate/

Ruth Hughes, a barrister specialising in mental capacity and inheritance says:

'If the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is passed, then this will lead to some of the most vulnerable people dying for others’ financial gain. That is certain. During a career spent specialising in mental capacity law and inheritance I have seen an array of financial abuse. Such abuse can be highly sophisticated.

Here are some examples: the defrauding of an incapable person following a dodgy doctor’s misleading mental capacity report; “predatory” marriage by a paid or voluntary carer; families taking advantage of an elderly relative through wills or lifetime transactions they don’t want or don’t understand; and even the removal of that relative from one continent to another. Some people at the end of their life are highly vulnerable to pressure.

Many, perhaps particularly women, may consider themselves to be a burden and the high cost of social care can see them running through a lifetime of savings they expected to be able to pass on to their children at an extremely high rate. That money might well be needed for adult children to get on the property ladder particularly in the South of England where prices are so high.

There is a risk of guilt that can be leveraged and much reason for a beneficiary to do so. It is surprisingly easy for a relative, whilst completing a variation on “the classic asset strip”, to persuade themselves that they are actually acting in their aunt Dorothy’s best interests or in accordance with her wishes or what would be her wishes if only she properly understood. It is attractive, sometimes unconsciously, to elide self-interest with self-righteousness. '