Dan Hitchens Profile picture
May 12 8 tweets 3 min read Read on X
1. Let’s take a look at some of these “scaremongering and ideological opponents”.

First up, the Association for Palliative Medicine.

The APM opposes the bill due to “concerns about protection of vulnerable, frail, elderly, disabled and terminally ill people”.
2. Former prime minister Gordon Brown.

The bill contains “insufficient protection” for the “frail and vulnerable”, he says.

It would also “alter society’s attitude towards elderly, seriously ill and disabled people”, and damage the identity of “the caring professions”. Image
3. The British Geriatrics Society—the association for professionals specialising in the healthcare of older people.

“The risk for safeguard failure is at least moderate in a modern, well-run AD service which we find to be unacceptable when considering the needs of older people.” Image
4. Disability Rights UK.

“In practice, it would be easier and quicker to access assisted dying in the UK than it would be to access social care support, palliative healthcare, and suitable housing.”

“The committee stage saw the weakening of already insufficient safeguards.” Image
5. Sir David Haslam, former president of the British Medical Association and chair of NICE.

“It is likely to have…a legion of unintended consequences… The elasticity with which assisted dying laws have been applied in other countries should serve as a warning.” Image
6. Liberty, Britain’s leading civil liberties organisation.

“We can only support legalising assisted dying if it works safely for everyone. This Bill doesn’t.” Image
7. Prof Sir Louis Appleby, who leads the National Suicide Prevention Strategy for England.

“Once the principle behind suicide prevention has been set aside...we have lost something we may not get back… That is why I don’t support the Bill.” Image
8. Ashish Kumar, Chair of the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Eating Disorders Faculty (as well as the Vice-Chair Agnes Ayton).

“We urge MPs to…vote against the bill—it fails the public safety test.” Image

• • •

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

Keep Current with Dan Hitchens

Dan Hitchens Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

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

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ddhitchens

May 15
10 moments that revealed the truth about the Leadbeater Bill: Image
Nov 12: Christine Jardine, a co-sponsor of the bill, flounders in response to basic questions.

(Prof Jane Monckton-Smith, leading coercive control expert, says the bill could turn out to be “the worst thing...we have ever done to domestic abuse victims”)
Nov 23: Kim Leadbeater suggests that feeling like a burden could be a “legitimate reason” to receive lethal drugs, then tries to backtrack.

(The bill is clear: if your sole motive is feeling like a burden, you qualify.)
Read 11 tweets
May 10
1. Kim Leadbeater has frequently misled the public and MPs. Even so, this interview is almost unbelievable.

To recap: her bill could force hospices and care homes to either offer assisted suicide or close down; she has refused to offer an opt-out.

Here she attempts to deny it.
2. Leadbeater tells the podcast, repeatedly, that hospices *will* be able to opt out:

“There is absolutely nothing in the Bill that says that they have to … I don’t think we should be dictating to hospices what they do and don’t do around assisted dying.”
3. So who said this in the House of Commons, on March 19, when *rejecting amendments* to allow hospices an opt-out?

“There are considerable harms that can come with the ability of institutions to opt out”.

You guessed it:
Read 11 tweets
May 6
The disturbing implication is that Kim Leadbeater has taken a long hard look at the bill’s conscience protections...

...and doubled down on refusing *institutions*—hospices and care homes—any right to opt out. Image
As a reminder: Leadbeater and allies have refused institutions the right to opt out of facilitating access to lethal drugs.

It seems likely that hospices and care homes could be sued or defunded if they want to have a “no assisted suicide here” policy:
Leadbeater: “Nobody will be at risk of any detriment *to their careers* if, for any reason at all, they choose not to take part.” [emphasis added]

Not really a promise she can make. How does it affect your career to be that one difficult person who won’t fetch the lethal drugs?
Read 4 tweets
May 5
1. The impact assessment suggests there could be up to 4,559 assisted suicides per year by 2039.

Already somewhat higher than the “40 patients per year” predicted by Leadbeater ally @SadikAlHassanMP.

But there is good reason to think 4500 is a serious underestimate. Here’s why: Image
2. The civil servants based that figure on a crude calculation: Oregon has a little under 1% deaths by assisted suicide, this bill is similar, so let’s say a little under 1%.

They don’t make any great claims for this method. Nor should they—because there are crucial differences. Image
3. Oregon, to state the obvious, does not have an NHS. It has a maze of different insurers and health providers.

Finding compliant doctors in the maze is so hard that—according to Oregon’s main AS group—only 1 in 25 who want lethal drugs get access to them. (Guardian, July 2014) Image
Read 10 tweets
Apr 3
1. Several misleading comments from Kim Leadbeater yesterday, but maybe the most glaring example was her comments to Martha Kearney later in this interview.

Kearney said there were fears that hospices “would find themselves dragged into the obligation to provide assisted death.”
2. Leadbeater: “Yeah, that isn’t the case at all.”

She then pointed to the “very clear section of the bill which talks about conscientious objection”.

That section of the bill very clearly only refers to *individual* conscientious objection, not institutions such as hospices: Image
3. But it could be extended to institutions, right?

That was the idea behind several amendments tabled last month.

These aimed to give hospices an institutional opt-out without facing legal action; and to ensure they wouldn’t lose public funding for not doing assisted suicide. Image
Image
Image
Image
Read 10 tweets
Mar 28
1. The assisted suicide bill is being mis-sold to the public—not always with big untruths, but often with little misrepresentations and ambiguities.

Marie Tidball’s description of the panel here is a good example:
2. Tidball claims that the panel will have a “really rich process”, taking a “psychosocial approach”. Implication is this is a profound, holistic assessment.

But the clause just says the panel need to be “satisfied” the person meets the criteria—terminally ill, not coerced etc. Image
3. Apparently the panel is “going to look at people’s lived experience and life circumstances with the role of the social worker.” Again this sounds impressively thorough.

But does the bill require anything about looking at people’s lived experience? No: Image
Image
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

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

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(