Assisted suicide bill

[genandtonic]

ive popped this on Scotsnet as well, so apologies. I just wanted to raise awareness to anyone here that is in Scotland.
im not the most clever political person in the world, so apologies if I’ve got this wrong, but whether you believe in this bill or not, this seems a tad concerning given the Scottish governments current level s of nuttiness.

I got sent this from the righttolife oraganisation whether or not you agree with all of their views ( I don’t) I am glad they, and other groups are concerned about this.
given that the Scottish government don’t seem the most inspiring I’m a little concerned. They appear to be taking the English view and making it more extreme? I haven’t read it in depth so would appreciate anyone who knows more about these things adding to the thread.
It seems to have been debated 10 years ago and was voted out at that time.
now it is being proposed by …’MSP Liam McArthur (Scottish Liberal Democrat, Orkney) has lodged proposals for an Assisted Dying Scotland Members Bill. The Stage One debate and vote will take place on 13th May’

right to life news says..’Scotland’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee directly identified a large number of major flaws with the Bill in its Stage 1 report, and made it clear that dozens of major structural changes need to be made to the Bill, should it pass Stage 1. ’
heres a link to the main article from right to life
https://righttolife.org.uk/news/scottish-health-committee-raises-over-30-concerns-with-proposed-assisted-suicide-law
and one from the bbc
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98gzyr678eo
It seems there are many additions to the bill here in Scotland that aren’t in England and wakes. It would be very useful, I suspect, to write to your MP . There is a template at the end of the right to life link.
anyway, FYI in case it’s of interest. (And you are probably all already super informed and ahead of me)

Dear x
We are now just 6 days away from the Stage One vote on the Scottish McArthur assisted suicide Bill – it’s happening this coming Tuesday, 13 May.
Between now and then, I’ll be in touch a little more often regarding the Scottish Bill. Please do keep opening my emails and, most importantly, take the actions I highlight (usually at the end of each message). Every single one makes a difference.
U-TURN
You might have seen that Liam McArthur has just made a last-minute change to his Bill, raising the eligibility age from 16 to 18. It’s likely he did this because he knows support for the Bill is on a knife-edge.
While this truly disturbing aspect of the proposed law has been changed, despite this U-turn, this still remains a dangerous Bill. If passed, it would put thousands of vulnerable people at risk.
TAKE THIS NEW 30-SECOND ACTION TODAY
The disability rights group, Not Dead Yet UK, is asking people to contact their MSPs using a new tool on their website. It explains exactly why this Bill would be a disaster for people with disabilities.
Even if you have contacted your MSPs already, it’s really important to contact your MSPs again using this new tool – so your MSPs hear specifically about the serious risks this Bill poses to people with disabilities.
Please take action now and click the button below to use their tool to contact your MSPs. It only takes 30 seconds.
Act now - Click here to contact your MSPs
Thank you so much for all your help on this.
I’ll be in touch again soon.
With best wishes,
Catherine Robinson
Right To Life UK

I was speaking to a psychiatrist recently about suicide and depression. Apparently the riskiest time for depressed patients, in terms of suicide, is as they start to recover. At the nadir of their depression they are mostly unable to consider or format a plan for suicide. It is only as they start to recover that they have the capacity to do this. (This is separate from an apparent recovery when they make the decision to commit suicide.) So those seeking MAiD for depression may well be those most likely to recover from that depression.

There was a good article by Kathleen Stock in the Sunday Times yesterday about assisted death, as she prefers to call it, in which she mentioned the Scottish Bill.

"Ultimately, the Scottish and English bills fell or will fall because their sponsors failed to address concerns about wider consequences. Some supporters preferred fantasy, insisting it was not about “suicide” at all. There were also dishonourable attempts to smear opponents, casting them as fanatics, rather than public servants with working brains and consciences, diligently doing their job."

Link to archive: www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/assisted-dying-bill-failed-debate-cgj2g69hs

I deplore the way that this has been done by the UK government, allowing that MP to bring it and Starmer having made a personal promise to Ms Rantzen, which is not how to govern (never mind his added denial about that promise). These careless Bills are a threat to people with disabilities (the way we treat them already is evidence adding weight to fears for their future), and women (and girls, ultimately), on whom the pressure will fall disproportionately because they are women; an added disproportion is that the elderly and alone with no one to look out for them, will be women as their husbands or male contemporaries tend to die younger.

This is a good interview from Kathleen Stock about her newest book on this subject, "Do Not Go Gentle: The Case Against Assisted Death". It starts at 1hour 16min in.

That doesn’t make sense, though. This bill is for people who are already dying. It’s not for people who just want to die.

My sentiments exactly. It would be monumentally naive to think there'd be no risk of it being applied for the wrong reasons.

That's what the Canadian MAiD bill started out as, now it's extended to people (and even young adults) with mental health or who are finding it difficult to support themselves financially. What's to say the UK will be able to resist extending it in the way other countries are doing?

What doesn’t make sense? That MAiD is available for those with depression, as is assisted suicide in other countries?

Please see https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5507900-house-of-commons-committee-report-on-palliative-care

I'm sorry this is on topic but a slight derail. This poor girl let down time and again by family and institutions that should have kept her safe. She may be dead by now

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/gang-rape-victim-25-to-die-by-euthanasia-in-spain-5HjdWsb_2/

I'm not going to say that suicide is wrong for her now, but that she was driven to this place. I hope she gets her wish, she dies peacefully, looking pretty. It's a tragedy that could have been avoided.

Bill "fell" because House of Lords did not complete discussion and so Bill did not pass onto next stage.

The only reports I have seen today have been about the HoL being undemocratic and that because the HoC passed the bill they should have agreed.

Which article I have linked to has made the focus.

Not sure what were the outstanding issues in terms of the HoL, although supporters of the Bill as saying none of them were real, just used as a way of talking it out.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/24/assisted-dying-bill-will-not-become-law-after-it-falls-in-the-house-of-lords

Most private members bills run out of time. The Lords submitted about 600 amendments mostly to do with safeguarding, protection from coercion, stopping abuse, oversight, safety of drugs, informed consent, etc and they were universally rejected by the sponsors of the bill. Lord Falconer (one of the sponsors) submitted 35 amendments himself - including to remove some of the safeguards the Commons had inserted into the bill.

It was a shocking bill that deserved to fail regardless of if you supported assisted suicide in principle.

All the clinical royal colleges (doctors) rejected it, as did disability organisations.

Such an important law should be a government bill with all the consultation and specialist inquiry that goes with it. Not a PMB that short-cuts nearly all scrutiny. The performance by the sponsors with their lies and misrepresentations has been shocking especially calling serious scrutiny by experts within the Lords ‘filibustering’.

I agree.

My comments were more about how the media reporting, or the ones I heard, just went on and on about the HoL being anti democratic.

I’m somewhat mystified by the actions of the sponsors of this bill. It’s almost as if they didn’t want assisted death to be introduced: if they had, wouldn’t they have introduced the kinds of safeguards detailed in the amendments tabled at each stage of the bill and so made its passing more likely? The attitude of Ledbetter and Faulkner was so high handed, and determined to paint anyone attempting to amend the bill as a saboteur acting in bad faith. It’s as if they went into a legislative process mistaking it for a culture war.

the whole process of a PMB was quite unsuitable for a measure of this moral complexity, with so many far-reaching implications. I’m glad it’s fallen, but I fear that its fanatical supporters (and I use that word advisedly) won’t rest u til they have brought it back, unamended, for another go at forcing it through.

The attitude of the sponsors of the bill reminded me a lot of gender ideologues - backed by hugely well funded lobbyists, refusing to engage with arguments rather resorting to misrepresentation of those questioning the bill. They also blamed vague ‘religious’ groups/beliefs for people’s opposition to the bill.

I saw a headline earlier today, Leadbetter comparing her bill to gay marriage

It may be misused possibly. But how is that worse than denying people their right to die?
Nothing is going to be perfect but people want the lesser of two evils. It is not okay to prevent disabled and sick people the right to die, when others already have that right. It is ableist and disgraceful.

The lesser of two evils to murder people who don’t want to die rather than support those who do to commit suicide? Really??!!!

Disability groups did not support the bill as it placed them at risk. Don’t think you can get much more ableist that support euthanasia of people who are disabled!

Its also not okay to allow disabled and sick people to be at the mercy of people who have control of their situation.

Just as it has been pointed out that women are vulnerable if in a coercive relationship.

As a PP said, it was just ridiculous to allow something as serious as this to be put forward by a political newbie, rather than the Government getting those with the relevant experience to put forward a bill properly written and with the obvious flaws dealt with.

The people pushing this really weren't a great advert for other, well off, powerful people inserting themselves into other people's end of life decisions. They bullied and coerced, as far as I can see and smeared opponents with very reasonable concerns. You can imagine how that sort of behaviour would fall on someone ill and vulnerable where it would be convenient for a lot of people and save a lot of money for the state if they died.

As soon as the state is involved you will get issues of cost and politics playing a part as highlighted by the case below.

A woman was put to death by the state, legally, in Canada recently despite explicitly asking for palliative care instead. I really don't see that this is anything other than state murder. I have no doubt that she was very ill, but it is extremely worrying.

One worrying thing is after one doctor refused to proceed with MAID because the woman said she didn't want it She reportedly told the MAID assessor that she wanted to withdraw her request, citing personal and religious values and beliefs (from article below), other doctors, one of whom did a 'virtual' assessment (i.e. not in person) did push it through and overrode the first doctor's concerns.

https://people.com/husband-pushes-wife-to-end-her-life-with-medical-aid-in-dying-11897734
From the article:

Coelho added that the report has "worrying trends” about physicians rushing patients through medical aid in dying.
“Geographic clustering, particularly in Western Ontario, where same-day and next-day MAID deaths occur most frequently, raises concerns that some MAID providers may be predisposed to rapidly approve patients for quick death rather than ensuring patients have access to adequate care or exploring if suffering is remediable,” she said. “This highlights a worrying trend where the speed of the MAiD provision is prioritized over patient-centered care and ethical safeguards.”

Same day and next day deaths! There is no way to properly assess if someone is being coerced on that timeframe.

I'd imagine it might be a lot easier to sign off on putting someone to death if you never meet them in person.