Post

@VaxControlGroup

@DrAseemMalhotra

More from @chrislittlewoo8

Chris Littlewood

@chrislittlewoo8

Jun 23

🧵The Safeguards Parliament Rejected: A System Built for Abuse

This past week, Parliament passed one of the most ethically weighty pieces of legislation in modern times: the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

Much of the public believe this law introduces "compassionate choice" for the terminally ill. But what they were not told is this:

Almost every amendment designed to protect the vulnerable was rejected.

The final version of this Bill passed without the core safeguards that would have made it ethically defensible, clinically robust, or socially safe.

Below is a breakdown of what Parliament chose not to include and how the final Bill fails to protect the very people it affects most.

Section 1: Mental Competency and Coercion

What Parliament Rejected and What It Means for Consent and Control

When a person decides they want help to die, the first and most important question is whether that decision is truly free. Not made in despair. Not made in fear. Not made because they feel they are a burden. Not made because they have been subtly encouraged to die.

The second most important question is whether those around them, the doctors, the family, the legal system, have taken every possible step to make sure of that.

Parliament had multiple chances to lock in protections for both. It rejected every one.

🟥 Parliament Rejected

• Amendment 17 (Dr Ben Spencer)
Required a formal mental capacity test based on the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This would have ensured doctors confirmed not just that the person “understood,” but that they had properly processed the implications of their diagnosis and the consequences of their request, including palliative care and alternatives to assisted death.

❌ Rejected

• Amendment NC16 (Rebecca Paul)
Proposed that people should not be eligible if their desire to die was substantially motivated by feeling like a burden, by depression, or by poor living conditions. While it addressed internalised pressures, it did not explicitly reference coercion

❌ Rejected by a vote of 283 to 230

• Amendment 2 (Dame Meg Hillier)
Aimed to stop doctors from initiating assisted dying conversations with patients. This safeguard would have reduced the risk of undue influence by ensuring only patients could raise the topic

❌ Rejected by a vote of 256 to 230

🟩 What the Bill Actually Includes

• Clause 1
Defines eligibility as any “adult” with a terminal illness. It does not restrict eligibility based on state of mind, motivation or coercion

• Clause 3
Requires signoff from two independent doctors and review by an Assisted Dying Review Panel consisting of a lawyer, psychiatrist and social worker, not a judge as originally proposed.
However:

• Neither doctor is required to specialise in the patient’s condition

• The second doctor is not required to meet the patient

• There is no obligation to assess the presence of depression, trauma or internalised pressure

• The psychiatrist on the panel is not required to assess the individual patient

• There is no formal Mental Capacity Act test

• There is no requirement for family input or consultation

• There is no right of appeal for concerned relatives

• Clause 5
Makes coercion a criminal offence (up to 14 years’ imprisonment) but does not provide any mechanism to detect it, such as mandatory psychological evaluation or independent safeguarding review

❗ The Result

Despite what supporters claim, this Bill does not protect people from making life ending decisions under pressure.

Yes, it requires two doctors, but neither needs to know the patient, understand their condition or be trained in mental health. One can simply review the forms and approve the death.

Yes, it requires a panel to confirm the request, but that panel’s role is limited to checking whether procedures were followed, not independently assessing whether the decision is truly free or safe.

There is no mandatory mental health assessment
There is no family consultation requirement
There is no appeals process for concerned relatives

While patients can withdraw consent before administration (Clause 6), there is no mechanism for others to pause the process or ensure the patient hasn’t changed their mind.

No safeguard if the person changes their mind.

🧩 Additional Context

• The Royal College of Psychiatrists has warned that 65 percent of its members do not believe consent is a reliable safeguard in assisted dying cases

• Leading MPs including Rachael Maskell stated in the Commons that the rejection of amendments like NC16 left clear openings for coercion and emotional manipulation

• Despite these warnings, Parliament pressed forward

This is not a framework for dignity.

It is a fast track to death, signed off without certainty, supervision or accountability.

And those left behind will never know if it was truly what the person wanted.

Section 2: Protection for the Vulnerable

What Parliament Rejected and What It Means for You

When someone is already struggling with poverty, isolation, disability or mental distress, are they truly choosing to die, or are they being offered death because no one is offering them help to live?

This Bill could have built protections for the most vulnerable people in our society. Parliament chose not to.

🟥 Parliament Rejected

• Amendment NC16 (Rebecca Paul)
Proposed that assisted dying should not be offered to those who were substantially motivated by feeling like a burden, by poverty, debt, poor housing or social pressure.

❌ Rejected with a vote of 283 to 230

• Amendment 101 (Damian Hinds)
Proposed that doctors should be barred from raising the option of assisted dying with patients who have learning disabilities or Down syndrome, to avoid undue influence.

❌ Rejected

• Amendment 102 (Rebecca Smith)
Required doctors to check for known suicide risk factors such as depression or psychiatric history before certifying an application.

❌ Rejected

🟩 What the Bill Actually Includes

• Clause 1
Does not exclude people from eligibility based on financial hardship, social disadvantage, learning disabilities or autism.

• Clause 3
Requires two doctors to approve the request, but does not require them to:

Have experience with vulnerable groups.

Recognise signs of suicidal ideation, guilt or emotional manipulation.

Make any adjustments for communication difficulties or cognitive impairments.

• Clause 5
Criminalises overt coercion, but does not require any evaluation of whether a vulnerable person’s decision was truly free of internalised pressure or despair.

❗ The Result

This legislation now permits some of the most vulnerable people in society, those who already struggle to be heard, understood or properly supported, to be quietly guided toward death without any additional scrutiny.

A person with autism or a learning disability who expresses suicidal thoughts due to misunderstanding their diagnosis or feeling overwhelmed by care needs can be considered eligible. There is no requirement for a specialist in learning disability or communication to be involved. There is no extra safeguard for people with limited verbal reasoning. And there is no legal obligation to investigate whether their distress is treatable or temporary.

A person experiencing severe financial distress who believes they are a burden on their family or society, who may be unable to afford treatment or support, can now be helped to die instead of being helped to live. Poverty, homelessness and dependence are not barriers. The law does not even require that financial hardship be explored or recorded as a motivating factor.

Even more disturbingly, if a person explicitly says "I feel like a burden", which in any other medical setting would be a clear warning sign, the process does not have to pause. The doctor is under no legal obligation to refer for counselling or delay the process. That expression is not treated as a red flag. It is treated as noise.

This is not a compassionate safeguard.

This is a system that absorbs despair and processes it as consent.

In a just society, the response to suffering should be to relieve it.

Under this Bill, suffering becomes the gateway to death.

Parliament had the chance to protect the vulnerable
And it chose not to.

Read 9 tweets

Chris Littlewood

@chrislittlewoo8

Jun 18

1/ Parliament just passed an amendment that allows women to self abort their child at any stage of pregnancy

Even at full term
Even in the ninth month
Even in labour
No doctor
No oversight
No prosecution

This is now legal in the United Kingdom

2/ There is no gestational limit

There is no requirement for medical supervision

There is no legal consequence if the baby is born alive and no help is called

This is not a hypothetical

This is not sensationalism

This is what the amendment allows

3/ At 36 to 40 weeks, a baby is fully developed

Lungs

Brain

Heartbeat

Pain receptors

The ability to grasp your finger

Smile at sound

Suck its thumb

Turn its head toward its mother’s voice

This is the child you can now legally abort

Read 14 tweets

Chris Littlewood

@chrislittlewoo8

Jun 14

🧵 The UK is about to legalise quiet elimination

No diagnosis
No judge
No family involvement
No appeal
This is not compassion.

It is the Terminally Ill Adults Bill.

It returns to Parliament Friday 20 June.

It must be stopped.
👇

🔹 1️⃣
If passed, the bill will allow:

• Death based on a doctor’s guess that you might die in six months

• No requirement for diagnosis, scans or second opinions

• No family notification

• No appeal

• No judicial oversight

👇

🔹 2️⃣
Doctors will be allowed to approve life ending medication based entirely on paperwork.

No second specialist needed.

No psychiatric review required.

No court. No family.

If they are wrong, it is too late.

👇

Read 12 tweets

Chris Littlewood

@chrislittlewoo8

Jun 13

🔴 🧵: The vote on the End of Life Bill was due to happen today Friday 13 June.

It’s now been postponed to Friday 20 June.

Why?

Because it’s unsafe.
Because it’s not fit for purpose.
Because it’s bad legislation.

So bad, 122 amendments were tabled, many just days before the vote.
👇

2️⃣ You don’t throw 122 amendments at a well-written bill days before a final vote.

This isn’t routine, it’s panic.

Even its supporters know it’s full of holes.

They’re now scrambling to patch what never should’ve passed First Reading.

3️⃣ Let’s be clear:

If this bill were sound, it would not allow:

– Assisted suicide based on a doctor’s guess

– No requirement to verify suicidal thoughts

– No obligation to inform family

– Feeling like a burden as a reason to die

– Hospices losing funding for refusing to take part

But it does.

Every one of those is in the bill.

Read 9 tweets

Chris Littlewood

@chrislittlewoo8

Jun 11

🧵 THIS BILL IS HOW THE NHS COULD LEGALLY END YOUR LIFE — WITHOUT YOU EVEN KNOWING

This Friday, Parliament votes on the
Access to Palliative and End of Life Care and Treatment (Terminal Illness) Bill.

They claim it is about dignity for the dying.
But the truth is far darker.

It gives the NHS the legal power to quietly end your life
Even if you could survive.

Here is how 👇

1️⃣The bill sounds caring.

Who would not support better access to palliative care?

But what it actually does is create a legal framework for silent medical killings

With no consent

No challenge

No consequences

Let us look closer

2️⃣It gives doctors and NHS boards a legal duty to provide palliative care to people they label as “terminally ill” But here is the catch

“Terminal illness” is never defined

There is no time limit

No medical test

No second opinion required

Read 16 tweets

Chris Littlewood

@chrislittlewoo8

Jun 10

🧵 The BritCard: The Most Dangerous Policy You’ve Never Voted For

1) They’re calling it BritCard.

A digital ID.

A “convenient” way to access public services.
But behind the branding lies the greatest threat to British liberty in modern history.

Let’s break down what’s really happening… 🧵

2) BritCard would create a mandatory digital ID linked to every part of your life:

Health records

Benefits

Housing

Education

Bank access

Driving licence

Voting rights

You would need it to exist as a citizen.

3) This is not about convenience.

This is about control.

The BritCard proposal says citizens would become “digitally visible to the state across every interaction.”

Translation: You will be tracked. Always.

Read 16 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Chris Littlewood

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @chrislittlewoo8

Chris Littlewood

Chris Littlewood

Chris Littlewood

Chris Littlewood

Chris Littlewood

Chris Littlewood

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!