November 13, 2024 - 2:25pm
Labour MP’s Kim Leadbeater’s assisted dying bill has the “strictest safeguards anywhere in the world”, according to Labour MP Kim Leadbeater. In fact, the safeguards are so strong that Leadbeater could not even tell us what they were when she published those words at the weekend.
At least now we have the safeguards, such as they are, in print. The 38-page-long private member’s bill has been published just over two weeks before MPs are permitted five hours to discuss it and then decide whether to legalise state-sponsored suicide.
And what of these famous safeguards? Two doctors are required to sign off on an assisted suicide request, but the first doctor gets to pick the second (the “independent doctor”, allegedly). And if the second, “independent doctor” doesn’t like the look of the application, the first doctor gets to choose another “independent doctor”, a practice known as doctor-shopping, which has led to no end of abuse in places such as Canada — whose experience of euthanasia, by the way, is not relevant according to Leadbeater because it’s a very big country.
Then, the High Court must approve the request. Proponents of the bill have made much of this. There are 18 judges in the Family Division of the High Court. Proponents of the bill estimate that there might be 1,000 requests per year, which comes to about 50 applications per judge each year. Yet if we use Oregon — America is also a very big country, but assisted suicide promoters like to use Oregon as the best-case scenario — as a baseline, we are talking about more than 400 applications per judge a year.
Mind you, these 18 judges have other things to do as well: divorces, child custody, and the rest. At eight cases per week per judge, they cannot be anything but rubber stamps. Alternatively, cases could be passed to judges lower in the family courts hierarchy, which would mean that a big-money divorce case, say, will be dealt with by a more senior judge than an assisted suicide application.
Doctors are supposed to satisfy themselves that the applicant has not been coerced into making the request. But doctors are explicitly allowed to broach the subject of assisted suicide with their patients. Put yourself in the shoes of a patient on their sickbed. The doctor comes in and says, sotto voce: “Have you considered… making a dignified exit? We are very short of beds, you know.” Is this coercion? Not according to the Leadbeater bill, which proposes that killing yourself is healthcare, so why not discuss it with your favourite medical professional?
How would doctors detect signs of coercion, since they are not trained in spotting coercive control? Christine Jardine, a Scottish Liberal Democrat MP and a co-sponsor of the bill, had a fun time on Newsnight, when presenter Victoria Derbyshire asked her this exact question.
“I think we are talking about people who are in a heart-breaking situation,” began the hapless MP for Edinburgh West. “Hopefully, there would be questions, hopefully they would examine the person”. Pressed again for an answer, Jardine mumbled something about sincerity on the deathbed, then said that safeguards would be put in place if the bill is passed. “I thought this bill had the strictest safeguards in the world,” said the incredulous interviewer.
If, after watching the excruciating nine-minute clip, you still have trust in the bill’s safeguards, you are made of sterner stuff. Or perhaps you have your eye on Granny’s bungalow in a nice postcode. In any case, not even the bill’s boosters really believe what they say about the safeguards. This week, Humanists UK told MPs to vote for the bill even if they “are concerned about the practicalities” therein, which does not sound like a vote of confidence in the “strictest safeguards in the world”.
Meanwhile, Leadbeater has been telling MPs to vote in favour even if they are undecided about the issue, simply because it could be a long time before they get another chance at legalising assisted suicide.
She needn’t worry: Parliament has debated or voted on the issue in 2021, 2015, 2014, 2009, 2008, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, and 1997. And if Leadbeater and her backers have their way, Parliament will continue to do so year after year, until they get the outcome they want, at which point it becomes a “settled question”, sacrilegious even to question.
But this is not a settled question. In a world of collapsing healthcare and social care systems, of strained NHS budgets, and of greedy relatives, there is no way to legalise assisted suicide safely. Parliamentarians knew this, which is why they rejected it 10 times in the last 30 years. They must now do so again.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeDeath on Demand.
Economic theory suggests that Death will have to a) raise his prices; “pennies(??) on the eyes. You’re kidding“ b) start doing shoddy work; “Well, that would depend on your definition of ‘undead’, wouldn’t it?” or c) both.
Is the National Health ready to deal with this?
The best safeguard is no government involvement eith enabling the killing of citizens who have committed no heinous criminal acts.
The balance here is between those who are genuinely in terminal decline who wish to end their own suffering and have thought about and understand what they are doing, and those who are forced or pressured by other factors.
One safeguard might be to require a written testament to establish choices or preferences of the sufferer, written at least 12 (or 24) months prior to an application for assisted dying. An individual can have this on record if that is their wish, potentially held in private by their doctor or lawyer, but it can’t be created ‘at the moment’, and it may include limiting factors (eg only in case of dementia, excluding mental health or depression).
Switzerland legalised assisted suicide in 1941. Their law does not stipulate any medical or legal criteria other than that those facilitating the suicide must not be acting out of selfish motives. I am not aware of the law causing any major problems.
Consider for a moment just how badly everything else in this country functions
How would a person wanting to die “act out of selfish motives.”
“Those facilitating” might.
Enough with the death cult already. Our ultimate faith can’t be in the medical establishment, or the flimsy safeguards of shortsighted politicians; let the object of our trust be Christ – the Resurrection and the Life.
“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” John 10:10
Weirdo
To put it simply: a moral disaster of catastrophic proportions. Thanks for pointing out the holier-than-thou hypocrisy of the pretence of safeguards; all in the name of compassion.
Can we point out the holier-than-thou hypocrisy of the Christians who oppose this?
Let’s remember the opposition is not all religious.
True. Holier-than-thou hypocrisy is not the exclusive preserve of the religious, although it does flourish there.
Feel free!
The objections seem to be based on practical issues. Motor cars kill over two and a half thousand people in the UK each year. Let’s ban the car.
The principle is whether society has the right to prolong a person’s suffering against their wishes. There are many Rights, but we don’t seem to have one for this. And, if you are religious, stay out of it; you’ve nothing to contribute.
A lot of the objections are actually ideological hiding behind a mask of “it’s impractical”. The “it’s not practical” problems are all ultimately solvable (though those who make them never make any attempt to do so). But that won’t stop the objections.
I have no objection to religious people getting involved. Just as long as they aren’t trying to force their views onto those who don’t share them.
“Force their views onto those who don’t share them.”
Yes we can just leave that to Humanists UK
Religious people always try to force their views on those who don’t share them.
That’s not been my experience. In fact watching the self labelled aetheists at work is a sight to behold.
I can assure you that I, a “self labelled atheist” (note the spelling), will never attempt to influence a religious person to avail themselves of VAD. They however seem determined to stop me from having access to it.
Yes, but it’s not all about you MM.
It should be about British voters, and I’d be pretty sure they are in favour of VAD. The religious might like to turn their mind to doing something about the industrial scale kiddie fiddling perpetrated by their priests if they actually want to do something useful.
We have. The problem of child abuse has a new centre of gravity. It’s the trans rights faction you need to tackle.
No you haven’t. The Christian Churches are still rife with kiddie fiddlers. One can only assume that rank and file Christians have no problem with that.
I am a US physician, who happens to be religious. I hope that I might contribute something to this discussion, despite KB objections. The Oregon model of assisted suicide is held up as a model for many bills of this type. It has many weaknesses, in my opinion. My objections are as follows: 1. It is called the Death with Dignity Act. In reality it is an assisted suicide act. The use of euphemisms to describe the procedure is an affront to reality. 2. The Act prohibits using assisted suicide as the cause of death on the death certificate. This makes it impossible to reliably research the potential effects of medical suicide on the general populations suicide rate. In other words, does the legalization and acceptance of suicide affect the overall suicide rate? Most states in the US have robust suicide prevention programs. Why invest in these programs if it is acceptable for the state to promote assisted suicide? 3. Oregon allows the prescription of a concoction of meds for the procedure. In 2023 nearly 200 prescriptions were not used (out of 560 total prescriptions). What happens to these unused narcotics? Don’t know. 4.What about complications of the procedure? 265 out of 367 deaths were reported as “unknown” regarding complications. We don’t know what possible suffering or complications occur as a result of the procedure. Perhaps there is none? Insufficient data. 5. What are the most common end of life concerns of those who use this option? They are loss of autonomy, inability to enjoy life’s activities, loss of dignity, and being a burden to family/caregivers. Only about 30% cite concerns of pain control or suffering. So the concern of physical suffering for the terminally ill should not be the primary argument for those who promote these bills. 6. The demographics of assisted suicide in Oregon has remained remarkably stable over 25 years. 95% of patients who avail themselves of assisted suicide are caucasian, with a large majority college educated or more. In other words, these bills are designed to help educated white folk who worry about controlling every aspect of their life, including their death. At best, these laws are unnecessary; at worst they are racist. Finally, KB uses the example of motor car deaths as a reason to ban cars. I would point out that motor cars dont kill people per se; people die in motor car accidents. I would wager that the majority of these people were not planning to kill themselves when they stepped into the car.
The US does have a lot of cases where the title of an Act seems strange (like the Inflation Reduction Act).
Very interesting content. Thanks.
Oregon is 73% white, with another 5% identifying as white Hispanic. Less than 2% of the population is black or African American. Race card fail. As a religious physician you thwart god’s will every day by preserving or prolonging lives that he (it is a he, isn’t it? They all are. How sexist is that?) has given diseases and ailments to for a reason. No ticket to paradise for you. Especially if you just ‘happen to be religious’. Bit of a lack of conviction there.
Thank you for your comment. I do think the “race card” is significant. Just look at the published statistics. In Oregon, over the 25 years of assisted suicide, 2727/2847 (96%) of the deaths are designated White race, compared to 0.1% African American, 1.3% Hispanic, and 0.4% two or more races. This is even more blatant in California where 88% of deaths by assisted suicide are White (compared to 35% of the 2020 population). One can argue whether this is important or not, but when commenting on safeguards of assisted suicide bills, it is a consideration. As is the fact that only 1% of Oregon deaths received psychiatric consultation, or the fact that in Oregon the Bill was written for Oregon residents only and now allows out of state participants. Yes, I “happen” to be religious; this comment was made in reference to KB’s objections to anyone religious voicing an opinion on this subject. Whether or not one is religious, and to what degree they are religious, should not have any bearing on commenting on poorly written legislation without appropriate safeguards.
One further point: I respect disagreement on this platform, but personal invective or maligning a person based on their profession, vocation, or religion is unnecessary and not helpful.
Excellent comment, thank you for taking the time to write it. The unused narcotics are indeed a concern.
“Thou shalt not kill”. That really is so 20th Century isn’t it?
Yeah. Not like “Thou shalt not make graven images”. There is something in that for all of us.
The Canadian experience has been that the criteria and how they are applied keep loosening – so pay attention to the safeguards. In practice you get some very enthusiastic physicians promoting this who will push boundaries.
> Parliament will continue to do so year after year, until they get the outcome they want, at which point it becomes a “settled question”, sacrilegious even to question.
How would this come to pass? What prevents anyone from continuing to question it, what prevents a future government from repealing or changing the law?
Only the fact that British voters would be overwhelmingly in favour of it.
There’s usually a majority that would favour the return of the death penalty too. Their wishes are being ignored. Ditto mass migration. These legislators, eh?
I don’t think there is a majority in favour of the death penalty in any country I am a citizen of. As to “mass migration”, define “mass”.
Well because “the science will be settled” and “the experts have agreed” and “look at the wonderful savings we’re making to the NHS with this.” I’d imagine that’s how it will become unquestionable, not to mention your countries rather loos “hate speech” and “defamation” laws make it criminal to criticize the MPs.
Do those phrases actually stop anyone questioning? On every topic I hear such phrases uttered, I see people openly questioning them.
And MPs are being criticised from all sides every day.
Precisely, that’s the beauty of the Westminster system.
If a law has many unpleasant unforeseen consequences, and enough of the public want it reversed it’s incredibly easy to do so
Netherlands now reviewing assisted suicide for health people over age of 75. What.could possibly go wrong?
Are you going to tell us what you think could go wrong, or was the statement simply for rhetorical effect?
The author keeps referring to ‘decide whether to legalise state-sponsored suicide.’ It would be more accurate to add ‘for those with a disease that would kill them within 6 months’.
In Western Australia, where our scheme appears to be working fine, it isn’t legally counted as suicide. There is also this in the W.A. scheme “During the process the person must make three separate requests for voluntary assisted dying: a first request, a written declaration and a final request. The written declaration must be witnessed by two people (who meet specific requirements).” So it isn’t something one could bully someone into and have done quickly – it’s a considered process.
I hope people in the U.K. consider the schemes that operate in the Australian states before they make a decision.
Good point. I too am in Western Australia, and (as far as I can see anyway), our scheme seems to be working fine. I haven’t directly compared it to the UK Bill though.
In Australia the law also believes that Roxy Tickle is a woman, which does not fill me with confidence.
I guess it’s the same in the U.K. and we just have to look at these things on their particular merits. What has allowed the Roxy Tickle situation was hardly the subject of much consultation with the community, just pushed through by those who obviously know better than most of us, whereas the Voluntary Assisted Dying debate went on for years and years and was exhaustively debated – the first Bill in W.A. was in 2000, but several Bills later, it was in 2019 that a successful Bill came before the parliament.
I recommended the Australian system of Voluntary Assisted Dying to British people because Australia and the U.K. are so similar, legally, culturally …. it’s easier than looking at the law in countries that are quite different.
Why not? Dame Edna Everage was a woman we could all be proud of!
Interesting – thank you for making those points.
What about the individual having to make a previous commitment of intent – perhaps before a commissioner for oaths – that they would prefer assisted dying, if and when circumstances require. It could be set up some years in advance, as we do for Powers of Attorney. We also have Organ Donation consents. Death is inevitable, and merits forethought and planning.
The article is spot on till at the end it mentions ‘healthcare’ . No country in the west has a health care system: we all have an illness care system, which is more lucrative than a service that seeks to foster health and resilience in patients and people overall (and farms: animals and crops). A health care system that primarily cares about health will be less interested in voting for a euthanasia bill. Serving people with the best of health care (again not sickness care) will also make end of life and severe and debilitating issues much less of an issue and improve palliative care. health is about beng able to make the best of your situation in the face of things of life: this needs much more than pills and surgery, this need interventions that improve and enhance normal natural homeosasis mechanisms (i suggest researching the word: salutogenesis)…. but this will require rethinking medicine away from a service to fix patients …. lots of water will run under the bridge unless the next generations of doctors vets etc turn the juggernaut around. Please check Aseem Malhotra for more info…
Excellent comment, thank you for writing it. I looked up both, salutogenesis & Aseem Malhotra. Lots to read & think about, but at first glance much of it is familiar.
However bizarre the below is likely to read, Australia’s organised crime participants/enablers use technology to induce symptoms of serious diseases in crime witnesses they are unable to trick, bribe or coerce into aiding crime with their silence, as in my case.
Remotely induced physical harm is one of the capabilities of a crime industry that people don’t know about, an industry I have had the dubious honour of getting to know via thousands of crimes that will never be punished, against my will, since in 2009 I became one of the many concurrent targets of a stalker coworker at the Victorian Electoral Commission in Melbourne, Australia. The stalker had (still has?) unrestricted access to info e.g. where to find people in witness protection. He evidently traded/is still trading stolen data for crimes as a service. Look up my ‘perfect crimes’ article on my LinkedIn profile for some of what I have been forced to learn about crime-tech in a leafy suburb of Melbourne, where I have owned my home since 2001. I am an ex-refugee turned MBA Science graduate e-commerce world-champion. I never even dated the stalker, I only know the MARCUCCI through their crime gluttony.
The technology used in remotely induced physical harm incidents is unknown outside of e.g. military circles (see DARPA’s transcranial direct current stimulus), not expected to be in crime arsenals, so victims affected cannot even ask people for defence options without being ridiculed at best, seen as unhinged at worst.
I need to see a doctor every 6 months for prescriptions of meds I have been taking for 30+ years. As a crime witness, whose conscience cannot bear complicity with crimes, I am subjected to a barrage of remotely induced physical harm, when I make a booking, so I appear to be in a bad enough shape for my GP to send me for tests, specialists, even to hospital.
Last time I had to get my prescriptions I didn’t make a booking, just chanced getting an appointment. While I am subjected to ongoing crimes resulting in a baseline of anxiety/unease – Australia likely never had functional law-enforcement, my condition was a lot better than it was 6 months earlier. 6 months earlier I was not able to sleep for days, my blood-pressure was very high, I had a debilitating headache, nausea, etc. I also had a blood-test 2 years ago that was so bad, my GP tried to send me to hospital, even though I had no physical symptoms. Not long before the alarming bloodtest I discovered a lump sum theft from my savings. Financial systems are a lot harder to hack than medical systems, so I refused to go to hospital, I no longer take blood tests. I exercise to exhaustion most days to be able to sleep in spite on 24x7x365 crimes against me, I watch what I eat. Like Viktor E. Frankl I treat crimes against me as an observer, not a victim, so I have a dignity of purpose. I am in great physical shape.
I was in my 50s, when this circus started, so I knew my own body, I know what normal is. I have to dodge doctors’ anxiety about being seen as negligent. If there is no fudged blood test or any other test, there is no doctor anxiety about phantom illnesses.
It took me a long time to realise: obviously murdered crime witnesses, e.g. Sallie-Anne HUCKSTEPP are a liability, discredited crime witnesses are an asset to criminals. I had to stop trying to ask for defence options against crimes I have been subjected to since in 2009 I was naive enough as a public servant witness to report crimes, because the tech used in crimes against me is often government/military grade. In 2022 I was even subjected to a Faraday Cage breach. This was doable, not trivial (1). Using vastly disproportionate means to achieve a trivial outcome – showing off Faraday Cage breach capabilites to a nobody in her own suburban home – is ideal for crime witness discreditation.
Mimicking symptoms of e.g. serious heart disease diverts crime witnesses’ attention from trying to report crimes also, in addition to the financial burden of being forced to see specialists.
— delete spaces from the URL —
(1) https :// blog .avast .com/exploiting-air-gaps-avast
Tech capabilities inducing symptoms of serious physical as well as psychiatric conditions have been in Australian crime arsenals for years (1). I was horrified to learn about plans to allow assisted suicide approvals via phone consultations during Covid. In addition to faked consent to assisted suicide, involuntary euthanasia is also a risk in industrialised countries like Australia. Any punishment is after the fact. No one can bring back the dead.
I have been a public servant witness to crimes punishable by 10 years in jail since 2009 in Melbourne, Australia, whom Victoria Police haven’t been able to silence yet.
Since in 2019 I declared self-representation, as Victoria Police forced me to fight at court in an admitted silencing attempt + tried to entrap me 2x for good measure, I have been subjected to a plethora of remotely induced, at times debilitating physical symptoms almost always in my home, on my own, behind locked doors. I won. Prosecutors bluff. My last forced experience with tech used in crimes against civilians less than 3 hours ago in the home I have owned in a leafy Melbourne suburb since 2001. I am writing this comment at 12:58pm on 15 Nov 2024. A recent development is being subjected to variations of DARPA’s transcranial direct current stimulus out in the open, e.g. in public, above ground car parks while not touching any metal objects, not carrying anything electronic.
Opportunity makes thieves everywhere, including at DARPA, Defence Forces of US’s allies, the NSO Group & the NSA. Snowden, Manning, Teixeira haven’t been the only opportunists & information isn’t the only valuable thing to steal.
Symptoms of serious heart-disease etc. come & go abruptly, making them evidently fake to the person experiencing them. Physicians in fear of being sued for negligence order specialist investigations/hospital stays though. You don’t need to be rich or famous for someone to try to take your life via hacked medical systems/devices. The medical establishment has a long tradition of defending themselves against patients with “adverse medical outcomes”. Tech crimes are such risk-free triviality for the perpetrators, they are committed for their own sake, for bragging rights, boredom relief etc. I am writing from 15+ years of involuntary crime-tech-demo-dummy experience. I never even dated the stalker ex-coworker, I only know the MARCUCCI through their crime gluttony.
— remove spaces from the URL —
(1) https :// www .linkedin .com/pulse/weaponising-schizophrenia-katalin-kish-qs0uc/