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.
Lad, first time I agree with you. Final Solution is cheaper and faster!
.
And I would be happy to become your assistant
“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 an MP vote of conscience possible? Do MPs know what conscience is? Or, if they have such a thing, isn’t it subordinated to their constituents? Isn’t that its name for them? Their name for it?
I agree. I think the assumption MPs are up to debating this Bill is debatable.
I actually listened to significant parts of the debate and strongly disagree with this rather fatuously expressed assumption. I didn’t expect to be particularly impressed by today’s assortment of MPs (and am not usually easily impressed). But I was. And I probably won’t be saying complementary things about Liz Saville Roberts again any time soon.
Their is – as others have noted in similar comments – a rather unpleasant undertone of arrogance in objections like yours here. What makes you think that you know your conscience any better than the MPs you seem to despise ?
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
So, to sum up, you are in favor of the right to abortion, provided not too many people avail themselves of it (and that those who do are not ‘First Nation’ Brits)?
God kills many more than that.
“With the assisted dying bill, a euphemism for suicide” – Sorry, Neil, but I prefer more precise definitions. Not suicide, but murder.
You say tomayto, and I say tomarto…..
Shuffling off the ‘moral coil’ appears to be the easier option.
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.
I gather Hungarian is quite a hard language to learn.
Sokkal könnyebb, mint megtanulni kínaiul.
(Much easier than learning Chinese.)
Yes, but only Finnish and Estonian rival it among European languages.
You should come to Australia! Oh, wait! We’ve got assisted dying too!
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.
“Whatshername…”
Deadbeater. Her name is Deadbeater.
While I have sympathy for the new law I think abortion law is a good example of a case where the law as written and implemented originally has changed beyond recognition. I expect this will very quickly do the same.
This bill is as unethical as they come and goes against all the tenant of western civilization. The issue is really very simple: it puts one down a slippery slope where murder/euthanasia becomes normalized. And as such it is easy to pressure people into going down that path even if they don’t wish to. Further, the fact of the matter is that palliative care is now very effective and there are methods to ensure that there is no pain and the patient can die a natural death as opposed to being murdered/euthanized.
I’m guessing that the bulk of the population doesn’t believe that.
Here’s the actual reason they want to pass such a bill: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/medically-assisted-death-could-save-millions-1.3947481
Change for the sake of change
Assisted dying. Sounds more palatable than state sanctioned murder I suppose.
Far more accurate, too.
As deceitful as the other transhumanists in North America and the Benelux countries.
There were exceptions, but the Labour and ex-Labour Left voted heavily against assisted suicide, while MPs from visible ethnic minorities were also far more likely to do so. All of the Independent Alliance voted against, as did all but one of those who lost the Labour Whip over the two-child benefit cap. The exception was John McDonnell. Once a renegade ex-seminarian, I suppose. By stark contrast, not only did all four Greens vote in favour, but so did three of the five MPs from Reform UK, 60 per cent, a slightly higher percentage than Labour. Rupert Lowe did so because 892 of 1,181 people in a straw poll of his constituents told him to. He is not a Burke.
Once this was over, then who still would be? If the King signed this, then even I might become a republican. I have always said that the monarchist and the republican arguments were each rubbish in its own terms, so the case for change had not been made. But after this? The late Queen signed absolutely everything, and Royal Assent was also granted to assisted suicide in Canada, in New Zealand, and at state or territory level over much of Australia. The monarch even retains the title “Defender of the Faith” in Canada and New Zealand. There as here, it is either obviously quite meaningless, or it means something utterly repugnant. You cannot be a figurehead of nothing. There is no such thing as mere symbolism. The symbolic is not mere.
Seconds after this vote, the Government Whip on duty’s objection blocked consideration of the Children’s Hospices (Funding) Bill. That Whip was Christian Wakeford, who had just voted in favour of assisted suicide. The blocked Bill’s sponsor was the whipless scourge of child poverty, Ian Byrne, who had just voted against it. But he intends to bring it back on Friday 24 January. We shall be watching.
One day the so-called Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will be expanded to cover those with terminally dry hair and split ends, and who will be left to speak up for Kim Deadbeater then?
Two doctors and a judge are allegedly required.
Since the NHS and “Justice” are obviously failing now, where are the requisite resources going to come from? I suggest this will be the first requirement to be ‘watered down.’
In the debate, did anyone raise the question of the curious number (since 2020) of “Do Not Resuscitate” notes found attached to medical files of people who had not even discussed whether they wanted to die? I have a friend who experienced exactly that, although few patients ever get to see their files, especially as they are now mostly computerised.
This wasn’t Leadbeaters bill. Look to a Certain Falconer in the Lords. She was just a front. Did she declare that ? If not the whole thing has dubiety in its proposal.
While supportive of legislation that enables a person to make his/her own choice about dying, I contend that the concerns about the legislation are also valid. It seems to me that these concerns can be summarised in two sentences. One, the concerns express fear that a foundational moral, the sanctity of life, is being rapidly eroded in the modern age. Two, what is being presented now as one option (assisted suicide/dying amongst others) that individuals can choose will morph, in due course, into obligation (required on the part of medics as well as patients and entail expansion of the scope of the original legislation).
By ‘foundational moral’, I mean that the sanctity of life is the touchstone in any instance that requires one to make a decision about whether to take the life of (put more bluntly, to kill or allow to be killed) another person or animal in circumstances where emotions (e.g. love; respect; doubt; compassion; fear) affect the rationale for the decision. One’s decision, at best, is wise in the sense of being a sound, albeit uncomfortable, decision in response to a dilemma.
Making a wise decision is something individuals can do but there are substantive reasons to doubt the agenda and integrity of parliamentarians and, ultimately, of governments to codify that capability via legislation. I may have expressed this point clumsily. I do not doubt that many individual MPs voiced their affective reasons for and against the legislation but I do doubt that the proponents have considered the unintended consequences of that legislation. Warnings about unintended consequences (my point about expansion of the scope of original legislation) have already been voiced through references to what has happened as a result of the legalisation of abortion in the UK and many other countries. In other words, the genie is out of the bottle and we really have no idea what will be the consequences.
Had a day off and listened to the whole of Parliamentary debate. The points the Author raises were raised by a number of the MPs given the opportunity to speak. The House of Commons did not have such alternative thoughts and views hidden. Leadbetter’s opening speech was one of many, so the notion any errors in her argument that critical doesn’t hold. MPs all probably given this matter more thought than 90% of the other ‘wiped’ Votes they usually have to cast.
Remarkable silence at the end when result announced which, my sense, showed all knew seriousness of the legislative stage that had been passed. My own views on the matter aside I thought British Parliament at it’s v best.
The Vote remained fairly close and much could yet change at Committee and HoL stage. A direction of travel has though been signalled. Both ends of the spectrum on this matter should avoid scare-mongering. What’s probably going to happen is a quite conservative and moderate (relatively speaking for this subject) Bill will become Law in due course reflecting the caution yet desire for some change in the Country.
An excellent summary.
Well said JW.
I listened to some or the debate and noted many MPs say that the bill should proceed to a further scrutiny stage as it needed further discussion. I judge that to mean that is is far from certain that it will pass the later stage at this point and that this is by no means a done deal.
What the vote has shown is that a majority of MPs believe this needs further discussion and that there is no *in principle* majority against this sort of change (even if there may be in practice as the details are examined). And that accurately reflects the general view in the country (and arguably understates it).
As someone who believes this is something we do need to change, I would also add that it’s far more important that we get it right than getting it done this time.
For once, MPs are actually doing their job properly (amazing how much better they are when they aren’t being whipped and told what to say and do). Don’t knock it.
Yet again there are a significant number of downvotes on comments on this subject (currently 10) with no accompanying rationale. Very disappointing.
Folks have a right to do that. More importantly they’ve read it, or at least might have.
I’m personally not in the least interested in the votes element. Nice sometimes someone confirms they agree and continues a quick interesting dialogue, but who wants to inhabit an echo chamber of everyone agreeing. Furthermore I think there’s a slight narcissism to being that interested in ticks.
I don’t give a monkeys for the ticks either. There are lots of bright people on here and I want to hear their rationale when they disagree. I might learn something.
Canada ‘ s Supreme Court allowed ‘medical assistance in dying’ because they said not allowing such assistance discriminates against those who wanted to commit suicide – long before decriminalized – but have a disability that makes it physically impossible for them.
So preventing discrimination against the disabled was the legal rationale for this change in law. Now people who are able to
Commit suicide but do not want to commit DIY suicide can have a state-approved person kill them. Let’s face it : it is not hard to access drugs to Do yourself in in Canada.
It is significant that Leadbeater chose this line of argument. It is a vulnerable area even for people who are sympathetic to the argument for assisted dying so I suppose she was trying to get her retaliation in first. It will be up to her opponents to critique her comments at committee Stage.
I don’t think that assisted dying can be even remotely compared to abortion. As an obstetric sonographer for years, I saw the devastation an unwanted pregnancy could wreak on some woman, who know they are unable to cope with having a child for many individual reasons. Abortion is neither to be encouraged or discouraged. I believe that few women actually embrace abortion happily. Don’t judge by your own perspective unless you are prepared to help bring up those children yourself. I know this is off the topic.