Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
First reading was on 16th October - the time to act is now
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) October 16th
Kim Leadbeater, supported by Kit Malthouse, Christine Jardine, Jake Richards, Siân Berry, Rachel Hopkins, Mr Peter Bedford, Tonia Antoniazzi, Sarah Green, Dr Jeevun Sandher, Ruth Cadbury and Paula Barker, presented a Bill to allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life; and for connected purposes.
It will be read a Second time on Friday 29 November
Last time this question came before the House of Commons, it was readily defeated, but the personnel has changed considerably and of course the law in several other countries including Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium and closer to home in the Isle of Man. We are all aware of the suffering of people nearing the end of their life but there are so many problems with changing the existing law (thou shalt not kill), quite apart from the ethical red line, that it’s hard to know where to begin. The proponents of this bill say they will introduce all sorts of safeguards but those countries who have gone ahead show us what a slippery slope we will be on. The most obvious one is how to absolutely prevent any coercion, which of course may be self-inflicted by those with declining health who feel they are a burden to their family. Second, any doctor will tell you how hard it is to predict how long someone will actually live with a terminal illness (remember Al-Megrahi released from prison in Scotland on compassionate grounds after doctors said he had less than 3 months to live and who survived a further 33 months back in Libya). Thirdly, once this crack in the door is opened, who will stop the rules moving from less than six months, to less than a year, to non-life threatening pain or anguish. All as a much cheaper and quicker solution than actually treating people’s underlying health issues and one with absolutely no reversability.
The slippery slope has been well illustrated in Canada and the Netherlands with examples highlighted in a Conservative Woman article here, including a 17-year-old girl with depression and others with non-terminal disability. In Canada ‘assisted dying’ is even being extended potentially down to infancy, where adults have determined there is no quality of life, and certainly it can’t be called ‘assisted’ if the child has no part in it.
Looking at the coverage from the recent Scottish Covid-19 Inquiry, it is also clear that during the covid period, elderly people in care homes were being given ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ directives, without their family’s knowledge and then being denied admission to hospital if they became ill. Coupled with liberal use of ‘end of life’ drugs, namely morphine and midazolam, they were apparently eased on their way with little regard as to whether they could have responded to standard treatments for pneumonia.
An organisation called Our Duty of Care has written the following open letter from doctors and other health professionals to the Prime Minister, which is reproduced in full here. It particularly draws attention to the poor state of the NHS at present, with poor access to palliative care and the current mental health crisis. The letter is open for health professionals to sign urgently, so please do so if you are a medical practitioner and/or share it with any medical friends and family if you are as worried by these proposals as we are. There is also a separate declaration to sign. They are part of the ‘Care Not Killing Alliance’. Heartening is that the Welsh Assembly have just voted against a change to the law.
Dear Prime Minister,
We write with great concern regarding the introduction of a Bill to legalise doctor-assisted suicide. The NHS is broken, with health and social care in disarray. Palliative care is woefully underfunded and many lack access to specialist provision.[1] The thought of assisted suicide being introduced and managed safely at such a time is remarkably out of touch with the gravity of the current mental health crisis and pressures on staff.
It is impossible for any Government to draft assisted suicide laws which include protection from coercion and from future expansion. Canada has clearly demonstrated that safeguards can be eroded in a matter of just five years; it has been roundly criticised for introducing euthanasia for those who are disabled[2] and plans for the mentally ill have been paused because of international concern.[3]
The shift from preserving life to taking life is enormous and should not be minimised. The prohibition of killing is present in all societies due to the immeasurable worth and inherent dignity of every human life.[4] The prohibition of killing is the safeguard. The current law is the protection for the vulnerable.
Any change would threaten society’s ability to safeguard vulnerable patients from abuse; it would undermine the trust the public places in physicians; and it would send a clear message to our frail, elderly and disabled patients about the value that society places on them as people.
Far from one person’s decision affecting no one else, it affects us all. Some patients may never consider assisted suicide unless it was suggested to them. Nearly half those who choose assisted suicide in Oregon cite ‘feeling a burden’.[5]
As healthcare professionals, we have a legal duty of care for the safety and wellbeing of our patients. We, the undersigned, will never take our patients’ lives – even at their request. But for the sake of us all, and for future generations, we ask do not rush in to hasty legislation but instead fund excellent palliative care.
Yours sincerely,
Sign the letter and the declaration here
[1] Marie Curie’s Better End of Life Report 2024
[2] Worries grow about medically assisted dying in Canada – The Lancet
If anybody allows this bill to happen, you are legalising the midazolam murders. You are saying it's okay for the state to kill you, at any time, if they create the conditions for it (I.E. they physically cripple you, turn you comatose, incapacitate you, get your family to consent to your murder on your behalf, etc). They will not stop at 'severely ill granny', they will expand it to murdering depressed autistic teenagers like they did in Canada (https://nationalpost.com/health/canada-mental-illness-maid-medical-aid-in-dying). They will come for the infirm, the mentally ill, the weak, the sick, the old. A eugenics program by stealth, hidden under the false guise of 'compassion' and 'mercy', but with a dagger aimed at the heart. They will withhold healthcare, and administer death, so they can save a few million whilst shipping off billions to foreign war genocides elsewhere.
They will rename state sponsored murder to anything other than murder; they will call it 'assisted suicide', 'euthanasia', 'a good death', 'an end to suffering' (suffering the state themselves inflicted), any number of lies, but they will never call it what it is: state sponsored mass murder. They will wheel out every guilt trip and lie. They will tell you diseases are incurable but they won't finance research. They will scream murdering weak people is the only solution, or the best solution, but they won't ever present evidence of what alternatives they've tried. They have no alternatives. They are the Nazi state, and they want their eugenics program back, and you are the frontlines to prevent that from happening. It must not happen. It must not succeed.
Euthanasia is a slippery slope to doctors being complicit in the murder of sick, frail, elderly , mentally ill, in short anyone inconveniently alive and needing care. It is a way of dealing with aged care especially. Committing suicide is one thing but asking another to be complicit in a death is something else. There can never be enough safeguards. So many stories of dementia patients being forced to die or if a disabled veteran needs specialist accomodation or the recent case with Nitske’s Sarco pod.