Post

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
Click again on or Share Via icon
Click on Copy Link to Tweet
Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
More info at Twitter Help

Danny Kruger

@danny__kruger

Nov 12, 2024 • 22 tweets • 3 min read • Read on X

Thread/
I've quickly digested the Leadbeater Bill, which was published this evening; I hope what follows reflects it accurately. The good news is we can stop this nonsense about 'assisted dying', 'shortening death' etc.

Thanks, I presume, to the Parliamentary drafters who don't like euphemisms in statute, the Bill is explicit we're talking about assisted suicide - 'assistance to end their own life' - and the legislation it amends is the Suicide Act 1961. So that's clear.

The bad news is it's just as bad as all the other efforts to license doctors to kill patients.

The Bill tries and fails to restrict itself to the extreme cases. But anyone who can find two doctors to confirm they're within 6 months of death - and a judge to confirm they're making their own decision - can qualify.

(Actually it's not even 'doctors' but 'medical practitioners', the definition of which will specified at a later date - so a nurse or pharmacist, I guess.)

You need to be registered with the first 'practitioner' for 12 months before they can give the green light. If the second one you pick doesn't agree to sign your form, you can shop around for another one.

And if they don't agree either, I think - it's not clear - you can start the whole process again, and repeat till you get your wish.

So it's death on demand, if a little slow and bureaucratic (for now - till the activists persuade Parliament to speed it up and simplify it on compassionate grounds).

And by the way you don't have to do all this yourself. A 'proxy' - someone you've known for 2 years, or someone 'of good standing in the community' (the Neighbourhood Assisted Death Advisor, perhaps) - can do all the paperwork for you.

The 'practitioner' who issues the drugs doesn't have to be there at the death - they can delegate that to another (more junior) 'practitioner'.

Whoever is there can't officially perform 'the final act' of administering 'the approved substance' but they can 'assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer' it i.e. they hold the cup to your mouth or press your finger on the syringe.

So let's walk this through. You get a terrible diagnosis and - as many do - you feel you want to die asap rather than endure a lingering death. Or you are depressed and unwell with a chronic condition - or an eating disorder - and you've given up on ever getting better.

Or your doctor (or their manager) voluntarily suggests that instead of a long, expensive, bed-blocking course of treatment which probably won't work, there is a cleaner, cheaper, altogether lovelier option...

So you register with a 'practitioner' of assisted suicide - probably someone who does this for a living. After 12 months they confirm you're good to go, and you get a sign-off from a second 'practitioner' (also a specialist in just this procedure)...

... and a High Court judge (dealing with 400 of these cases a year according to likely estimates) rubber stamps a form saying you're eligible.

The first practitioner sends along their nurse who sets you up with an IV drip, and puts your finger on the button. And (assuming the procedure works, which it doesn't always) soon enough you're dead.

At which point your family come round and discover what you've done, and realise that the government - the NHS and a judge - have killed their mother or their son without anyone telling them this was happening.

All this is fine if you think you should be able to summon the state to help you commit suicide. Let's just not pretend it's only for the most extreme cases. If it's a right, it's for everyone.

A final word. The Bill imposes an obligation on the NHS to ensure everyone has access to this great new service. There's already an obligation on the NHS to provide palliative care for all - an obligation it fails to meet.

Do you think, when Assisted Suicide is so much cheaper than palliative care - so much cheaper than hospital care itself - this is an obligation the system will duck? Or do you think the system will do its duty, and help as many people as possible enjoy the 'last right'?

Let's not cross this Rubicon. Let's have a proper national conversation about end-of-life care, which could and should be so much better. Let's invest properly in palliative services so no-one has to die in unbearable physical pain. /Ends

PS. I note the Bill makes it LEGAL for a doctor to suggest Assisted Suicide to a patient who hasn't mentioned it (a common problem in cash-strapped health systems), but ILLEGAL for a doctor to refuse to refer someone for Assisted Suicide if they request it. No neutrality here.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @danny__kruger

Danny Kruger

@danny__kruger

Jun 20

"Now, splendidly, everything had become clear. The enemy at last was plain in view, huge and hateful, all disguise cast off. It was the Modern Age in arms."

After this week I feel like Evelyn Waugh at the time of the Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1939. The politics of 'progress' has found its fulfilment in the union of two total malignancies: the campaigns to abort babies at full term and to kill old people before their time. Here is our enemy, all disguise cast off. 1/7

I've been accused of disguising something myself - my Christian faith. And it's true that while I've never hidden it (see my maiden speech) I didn't parade my faith as the basis of my objection to assisted suicide.

You don't need religious arguments to show this Bill is bad, and many atheists have been brilliant in the battle against it. You just need to actually read the Bill, and the statements of all the professional bodies who work with the elderly and dying. I'm appalled that so many MPs - judging by their asinine speeches - have plainly not done this. 2/7

But now that the Bill has passed the Commons I guess I can come out of the closet and say to the militant anti-Christians who were pushing it - you're not wrong.

I do also object to euthanasia on religious grounds - because the case for euthanasia is itself a religious one. Nothing else explains the failure of its supporters to engage with the detail of the Bill or the practicalities of implementing it.

Support for assisted suicide is an article of faith - faith in the capacity of individual human beings to play the role of God, towards themselves and others. 3/7

Read 7 tweets

Danny Kruger

@danny__kruger

Mar 20

This week in the Assisted Suicide Bill committee we reached the fatal moment. Between clause 18(9(a)) and 18(9(a)(i)) ‘the person has died’. Summary of changes this week below.

One bright spot amid the darkening scene: the committee accepted my amendment to require the doctor, at the last moment before the drugs are administered, to inform the patient they can change their mind.

But the committee retained the subclause that allows doc to ‘assist the patient to ingest or otherwise self-administer’ the fatal drugs. This subclause overrides the difference between suicide (legal) and euthanasia (illegal, in theory). The doc can put the cup of drugs to the lips of the patient, or press the patient’s finger on a syringe pump.

Read 9 tweets

Danny Kruger

@danny__kruger

Mar 12

Today the Assisted Suicide Bill committee voted to REMOVE the key safeguard in the Bill that MPs approved at Second Reading in November: the High Court judge who was to decide each application for an assisted death. 1/

At 2R I said the Bill would not be substantially improved (i.e. made safer) in committee, & I was right: we've had a few minor improvements accepted & a lot of major ones rejected. What I didn't anticipate was a very major change in the other direction, to REDUCE a safeguard. 2/

Instead of a neutral, independent judge we'll have a panel of pro-Assisted Suicide experts. They won't be required to ask 'why' the patient wants AS ('none of their business', said an MP on the committee). They won't hear arguments against the application. They can proceed with as little evidence as a phone call from a doctor - no requirement to meet the patient or hear from their family. 3/

Read 6 tweets

Danny Kruger

@danny__kruger

Mar 11

News from the Assisted Suicide Bill Committee room - an eight hour session, which began with a warning we might have to sit through the night in future to make the deadline the Bill’s backers have set. I regret the haste we’re going at. Anyway, here’s what happened today.

(I’ll be careful because it’s been suggested my tweets are stirring up a hate mob against colleagues on the committee. To be clear: I like and respect the backers of the Bill; their intentions are as good (or bad) as mine, and they don’t deserve any personal abuse.)

Amendments to help stop ‘doctor shopping’ - i.e. re-applying for AS till you find a doc who’ll approve - were voted down. The committee removed the requirement for docs to examine ‘all’ medical records, in favour of just those the doc ‘considers relevant’.

Read 7 tweets

Danny Kruger

@danny__kruger

Mar 4

Another day in the Assisted Suicide bill committee. A series of amendments to make it safer were rejected.

The committee voted down amendments to ensure doctors can’t suggest AS to patients - even to children. 1/

There will be no requirement of support for those with learning disabilities or autism to ensure they understand what they are agreeing to and are making a free choice. 2/

The sponsor agreed to involve Down Syndrome people and reps in ‘consultation’ on ‘guidance’ - but the committee refused to put statutory protections for this group into the Bill. 3/

Read 7 tweets

Danny Kruger

@danny__kruger

Jan 30

Thread. Final day of evidence at the Assisted Suicide bill committee. It was by turns personal and philosophical. We heard from relatives of 3 people who had had - or whose families wish they'd had - AS. This was powerful testimony of the suffering we're trying to prevent...

though it added nothing to the consideration of the detail of the Bill. For the third day running we heard from foreign enthusiasts of AS (still no opponents called to give evidence).

One doc said there's no problem with coercion or capacity or complications at the end in Australia... I wondered if this is because they don't collect any data. She said it's 'informal' evidence... and anyway the real problem is people 'coerced' into taking lifesaving treatment!