Kim Leadbeater MP has proclaimed that her assisted dying bill will have “the world’s strongest safeguards”. Yet as the weeks go by, the news coming out of the Committee scrutinising this bill doesn’t match Ms Leadbeater’s claim.
Those of us who are worried that legalising assisted suicide will send us down a “slippery slope” are completely justified. We’re on the slippery slope already. One safeguard after another has been jettisoned by the Committee, leaving those least able to defend themselves at risk. The list of amendments to the bill aimed at protecting the most vulnerable, which have been voted down with monotonous regularity, is giving this bill a distinctly eugenic look.
Protecting people with Down’s syndrome
The crusade to eliminate people with Down’s syndrome is familiar to the pro-life community. In 2021, 87.26% of unborn babies prenatally diagnosed with Down’s syndrome in England and Wales were aborted. Down’s syndrome is not a terminal illness, but those with the syndrome are particularly vulnerable. Far from protecting this vulnerable group, on 4 March MPs on the Committee voted down an amendment, 13-8 against, which aimed at safeguarding people with Down’s syndrome from being coerced into ending their lives.
In January of this year, the National Down’s Syndrome Policy Group issued a statement, signed by 61 local organisations, warning of the “potential for assisted dying laws to devalue lives based on disability, combined with common misconceptions about the quality of life for those with disabilities”. Now, the worst fears of these groups which support and advocate for people with Down’s look set to be realised.
A SPUC supporter who has an adult daughter with Down’s expressed her concerns in a submission to the Committee:
“My daughter has the mental capacity to make decisions about her daily routine, social, educational, and family matters, but she lacks the capacity to manage other aspects of her life such as her financial affairs and healthcare. This makes her more vulnerable to being influenced by others and it is worrying that a doctor would legally have a right to propose assisted suicide to an adult with a learning disability who has been given a prognosis of less than six months to live. My daughter is much more likely to defer to a clinician’s proposal as she might think that she ought to agree.”
Tragic autism case
In their wisdom, MPs on the Committee also voted 13-8 against an amendment that would have given extra support for patients with autism or learning difficulties. This is a group of vulnerable people who are suggestible and whose condition can make them feel isolated and without hope.
The tragic case last year of “MV” in Canada highlights the vulnerability of people with autism. In 2024, MV, a 27-year-old woman with autism, tried to end her life through MAiD (Medical Assistance in Dying). Her father launched a four-month legal battle to save his daughter’s life, saying that she was “healthy”, but “vulnerable”.
MV then decided to starve herself to death. Alex Schadenberg, of the Canadian organisation Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, intervened in the MV case and stated that the young woman was persuaded to stop eating and drinking by pro-euthanasia advocates and was a “victim of the death-lobby”. Thankfully MV is still alive. Her father’s legal intervention bought the family time and now they are focussing on MV not dying and sheltering her from influences that may trigger a desire to die.
Raising the subject
There is considerable concern about who initiates the conversation about assisted suicide. Amendments to ensure that the doctor does not bring up the subject of assisted suicide unless the patient wants to talk about it or mentions it first was rejected by 13 votes to 8. Even a motion to protect children from this was rejected, again by 13-8.
But even if doctors don’t raise assisted suicide with their patients, there are others who undoubtedly will. Greedy relatives come to mind, or families without the support they need to care for a sick or disabled member. MPs concerned about this put forward three amendments to try to prohibit encouraging someone towards assisted suicide, exerting undue influence or manipulating someone to choose assisted suicide. These amendments were voted down 15-8.
Rushed process
Looking at the list of amendments that the Committee have rejected, you get a horrible sense that people seeking assisted suicide will be rushed through the process. The first discussion of assisted suicide will not be recorded in the patient’s medical record. The patient will not need to be referred to a multidisciplinary team at the start of the process – a measure which could offer life-changing help. There will be no requirement for a doctor to consult a specialist in the patient’s condition or for the patient to have a meeting with a palliative care specialist. The inclusion of a 28-day period between a terminal diagnosis and the start of the assisted suicide process was thrown out. But a clause which would allow some assisted suicides to take place just 48 hours after they have been approved was passed by the Committee.
Women have often described their abortion experience as being on a conveyor belt. The same looks likely for assisted suicide, except that we’ll never hear of any user experience from assisted suicide cases.
Ms Leadbeater’s assertions about the safety of her bill ring hollow. There is nothing safe about abortion; a baby always dies. There is nothing safe about assisted suicide; someone will always be killed.
If you’re reading this and haven’t yet donated to SPUC, please consider helping now. Thank You!
