Main Edition
US
FR
November 29, 2024 - 6:00pm
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill today passed its second reading in the House of Commons by 330 votes to 275. Hailed as a “once in a decade opportunity” by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP who led the campaign, the vote in favour of assisted dying was met with hugs and cheers from supporters in Parliament Square. Yet, when she spoke during the Commons debate this morning, Leadbeater made several claims that have been labelled misleading, which in turn points to the complexities that come with safeguarding and eligibility concerns.
The MP for Spen Valley denied that this bill would lead to broader eligibility for assisted dying, claiming that “not one jurisdiction that has passed laws on the basis of terminal illness has expanded its scope.” Yet there are numerous recent examples in Canada, whose policies have been held up as a cautionary tale for the UK legislation, of citizens being euthanised for non-terminal, non-medical issues such as loneliness, despite the law requiring a medical condition for someone to be eligible. Indeed, last year there were over 15,000 deaths under the Canadian state’s assisted suicide programme — 4.6% of all deaths nationally. Belgium, where euthanasia was introduced in 2002, has also extended these laws to include under-18s, prompting accusations of the rules becoming a “slippery slope”.
Leadbeater also claimed this morning that “if the House passes the bill, the criteria [for assisted suicide] cannot change.” She pointed to the title of the bill as evidence that only adults come under its purview, but Parliament can and does amend both the names and the specific content of bills — and there is nothing in this particular one to prevent MPs from doing so.
On top of this, Leadbeater claimed that “doctors should be under no obligation whatsoever to participate” in the process. But the bill states that “a registered medical practitioner who is unwilling or unable to conduct the preliminary discussion […] must, if requested by the [patient] to do so, refer them to another registered medical practitioner whom the first practitioner believes is willing and able to conduct that discussion.” In other words, a doctor with doubts about proceeding with the measure would still be participating by referring the patient to another practitioner.
Also important to note was Leadbeater’s claim that permission must be granted by “two doctors and a High Court judge”. Really, the bill does not require the approval of a High Court judge, only that of a junior district judge. The Labour MP was also forced to correct her assertion that she had received the support of the judiciary.
In the run-up to today’s reading, Leadbeater has repeatedly cited popular support for legalising assisted dying, and this morning said that “it is clear that public opinion is very much in favour of a change in the law.” She added that “polling shows consistently that around 75% of people would like to see the legalisation of assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults.” Yet this figure is at the upper end of survey results in favour of the measure, and differently worded polls have yielded lower support, including by using more loaded terms such as “assisted suicide”. According to recent Focaldata polling, when Britons are told what assisted dying entails, support falls to just 11%.
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.
SubscribeMy sister a nurse of many years experience- and for the past ten years a hospice nurse has this to say:
I believe the good intentions of the people are being manipulated as they do not fully understand the issues at play.
I am an experienced palliative care nurse and understand the topic very well indeed. In all my years working in hospices, I have never once heard a member of staff state that they wished to have the power to assist in suicide. I have cared (rarely) for patients with MND who, despite the horrendous nature of their disease wanted more life not less as is the case for the vast majority of people who are in receipt of appropriate care, support and treatment.
I fear that in the absence of appropriate care this law will be abused extensively and innappropriate options will be offered to people whose needs incovenience others. By others I include Government, the NHS, Nursing Homes, family members, carers, local councils and so on.
Following the response to Covid and the fall out from it, where politicians and associated bodies caused far more harm than good from my perspective; it is now the case that patients and families can be far less trusting than previously. For example, I have had to reassure relatives and patients far more frequently that the medications provided were there to treat symptoms and not to hasten death. At times, patient’s symptom relief could be delayed due to this. Have those advocating this imagined the full implications of this legislation were it to pass? I doubt that even the greatest mind could fully envisage the resulting complexities.
Why should I have any trust in government to act in the best interests of the public myself when they clearly are not doing so in many important areas and this has been the case for years. The gaslighting, division and abuse of the people of this nation during Covid should be acknowledged and justice should be served. The fact that I know that this will never happen illustrates clearly the reasons why the “well meaning” parliament is absolutely lacking the skills necessary to address this issue with real sincerity and wisdom. During Covid Government policy rode roughshod over the mainstays of health care ethics including bodily autonomy and informed consent. That assisted dying is now being “debated” by the very perpetrators of those abuses is alarming in the least. I am extremely saddened by what appears to be a total lack of integrity, in the absence of which, this subject cannot be debated.
Is it not time that politicians admit that affecting legislation in order to somehow satisfy a perceived need, however small, is counter to common sense and eventually harmful to society in general, how many examples of this are necessary?
Far better to work towards improving nurses pay and conditions, looking at how nurses are trained and prepared for the role, addressing the vast amounts of waste of money in the NHS, improving the end of life care skills of medical staff and their ability to recognise and communicate when it is a suitable time to begin to consider and question active treatments whilst ensuring effective symptomatic relief and by guaranteeing that access to high quality palliative care and support is readily available to all who need it when they need it.”
Let’s face it, at the root of this is costs and the fact that we no longer have adequate resources to properly attend to the needs of a population that is growing exponentially thanks to the brain dead policies of the red and blue teams.
A well argued case (by your sister) but still, there are patients whose preferences at the end of life are enabled by the provisions of this bill (should it pass) that currently aren’t being. The narrative is one-sided, including only the views of those who would wish to maintain their life even in the face of extraordinarily difficult physical and mental suffering.
Your sister is, of course, perfectly right that palliative care provision should be far more advanced than it currently is – in fact, it’s currently being diminished in terms of hospice care, which is only part-funded by government and relies on charitable contributions which aren’t keeping up with demand. That, however, is a separate issue, and one which also involves the longevity of our population due to better medical provision during their lifetimes. Our population is not, however, “growing exponentially” which is a false claim, if the term exponentially is understood in the way it’s intended to be.
I’m fully aware of the emotions involved in these debates. Ultimately, there will be disagreement, but should the bill pass there will be many very relieved patients whose request to be able to end their life according to their own wishes just can’t be ignored. I don’t believe you, your sister, or the government has the right to ignore those wishes, or to maintain the criminality involved in the fulfilment of them.
Those of us who were adults in 1967 have heard it all before. The spectre of ‘back street abortions’ was to be banished forever amongst promises that regulation would be assiduous and selective; yet we find ourselves at a point where the number of aborted foetuses is such that ‘First Nation’ Brits won’t be around much longer, on a generational time scale. With the assisted dying bill, a euphemism for suicide, will come a torrent of regulations and assurances, none of which will be able to withstand the societal pressures associated with a care sector and the NHS generally “on it’s knees” and the growing pressure on people to do the right thing under certain circumstances. We saw much evidence of the latter during the Covid scam. Look across to Canada, where some inadequate/troublesome youngsters are given the opportunity to end it all to gain some notion of where we might be some time soon. Shuffling off the mortal coil will never have been simpler, and there’s the added benefit for one’s relatives that it might well be significantly cheaper than going to Switzerland. It all seems so inappropriate, for some of us at least, heading towards Christmas.
Abortion was supposed to be safe, legal and rare. Two hundred thousand babies killed in the UK every year.
So, when you downvote, point me in the right direction
It’s a disgrace. I’ve never considered emigration until now. What a rotten nation we have become.
I suspect the US, under Trump, may well become become an attractive escape route for those who still have youth and initiative on their side. Hungary and other Eastern European countries seem quite attractive if one wants to enjoy a largely European culture. Go for it.
Change for the sake of change
It is, of course, a disgrace to offer blatant, factual lies during a parliamentary debate. However, any MP who later claims to have been misled will rightly be labelled as either hypocritical or stupid. Anyone voting on this should have taken advantage of the plentiful moral arguments and evidence-based information on the subject.
Whatshername should be made a cabinet minister: lies like that are the order of the day; that and being blissfully ignorant when it suits.
As deceitful as the other transhumanists in North America and the Benelux countries.