Dan Hitchens Profile picture
Sep 1, 2025 17 tweets 10 min read Read on X
“Let’s be very very clear,” Kim Leadbeater told the House of Commons on November 29 last year. “The model that is being proposed here…is nothing like what happens in Canada.”

Here are fifteen important ways in which the Leadbeater bill resembles Canada’s disastrous model:
(Canadian details taken from this extraordinary @TheAtlantic story: ) Image
1. Vague criteria.

Canadian AS advocates pledged “stringent” safeguards, but “the criteria themselves were vague when you looked closely.”

Here, the bill’s proponents have refused to tighten the definition to exclude eg anorexia, diabetes and disability. Image
Image
2. Autonomy at all costs.

In Canada, “the concept of autonomy…has become paramount, allowing…advocates to push for expansion in terms that brook no argument.”

Similar rhetoric here, eg this: “Ultimately, it does come down to a question of autonomy.” Image
3. Lack of responsibility.

“Canada’s leaders seem to regard MAID from a strange, almost anthropological remove: as if the future of euthanasia is no more within their control than the laws of physics.”

Here, too, nobody will say the buck stops with them: Image
4. Kicking the can down the road.

“Following the law’s passage, doctors, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and lawyers scrambled to draw up the regulatory fine print.”

Here too, huge questions have been left for others to answer if the law is passed. Image
Image
5. Ignoring inequality.

Elaina Plott Calabro writes of doctors euthanizing people who were obviously isolated and vulnerable.

Here, AS advocates have refused to address this point—and have voted to allow AS if the sole motive is financial insecurity. Image
6. People choosing AS because of lack of support.

Plott tells the story of a man who changed his mind when his family started visiting him.

Under the UK bill, you can receive lethal drugs if your sole motive is loneliness or a failure of public services. Image
7. Systemic failure.

One applicant: “It was not a genetic disease that took me out, it was a system.”

Here, not only can you request AS because of public service failure, but applicants are not guaranteed eg a meeting with a palliative care specialist. Image
8. Feeling like a burden as a reason for requesting assisted suicide.

This is happening in Canada, and is common in all jurisdictions which record people’s reasons.

Proponents of the UK bill have repeatedly rejected attempts to prevent this: Image
9. Doctors can raise the subject of AS.

In Canada, this has become a common complaint: that healthcare professionals can bring up AS unprompted.

Here, amendments to prevent this have been rejected: Image
10. Lack of appeals process.

Plott says this is part of “the hollow oversight of MAID”.

No appeals process in the UK either, once the panel approves—even if, say, a family or a GP has crucial information that could help the panel reconsider. Image
11. Rejecting psychiatric expertise.

In Canada, there are plans to expand the law despite the objections of leading organisations.

Here, the Royal College of Psychiatrists have come out against the bill after their concerns were repeatedly ignored: Image
12. Dangers to the psychologically vulnerable.

In Canada, AS is open to those “largely motivated by their mental disorder”.

The UK bill is open in the same way, and psychiatrists say the bill doesn’t give room to “identify an unmet need like depression”.
Image
13. Anonymous, bureaucratic processes.

Plott Calabro points out that, under the Canadian model, doctors are unlikely to know the patients requesting AS.

Here the same is likely to be true, as assisted suicide may well be outsourced to private firms: Image
14. Complacent predictions from civil servants.

In Canada, estimates of uptake were far lower than the reality.

Here, the government impact assessment crudely transferred numbers from a completely different healthcare system: Image
15. Complacency about international comparisons.

Canadian judges said the Belgian experience was irrelevant because Canada was totally different.

The bill’s supporters say that, when it comes to legislating here, we can just ignore the Canadian disaster.

Should we trust them? 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

Jul 23
1. What is Andy Burnham’s most prized possession?

And what does it have to do with the assisted dying bill, which returns to the Commons in 50 days’ time?
2. In 2010, Burnham told the New Statesman his “most valuable possession” was a copy of the 1946 NHS Act, signed by Gordon Brown.

This contains the NHS’s “founding charter”, incorporated into the 2006 NHS Act. Image
3. That charter is altered by the explosive subclause 41(4) of the Edwards/Falconer assisted dying bill, which allows ministers to redefine the NHS’s identity.

The Act says the NHS must “secure… physical and mental health”. AD is a departure from that.
Read 12 tweets
Jun 15
1. This statement contains several inaccurate or confused claims.

First, Edwards says the bill is only for those “at the very end of their lives.”

But the bill’s “6-month prognosis” criterion is very broad: 1 in 5 of those eligible will actually have at least 3 years to live.
2. Edwards says the Impact Assessment was able to “ensure [the bill] was workable, effective and enforceable.”

As @nmdacosta says, the IA doesn’t make any such claim about the bill:
3. Edwards calls it “the safest and most robust assisted dying law anywhere in the world.”

But the bill deliberately omits key safeguards included elsewhere… Image
Read 8 tweets
Apr 24
Top 10 moments from the Lords scrutiny of the assisted suicide bill (which concludes today): Image
10. Lord Falconer’s brutal honesty about the proposal:

“Of course nobody wants the absence of palliative care to be the reason you apply for an assisted death.

“But we have to give everybody this choice on the basis of the way the world is for them.”
9. Stephen Kinnock, who would be the minister for AS implementation, tells the Lords committee it’s “impossible to say” how much profit could be made by companies providing the service:
Read 11 tweets
Mar 17
Liam McArthur is a skilful advocate for his bill, but in crucial areas his statements are misleading or oversimplified. Five examples: Image
1. McArthur claims (in today’s Scotsman) that this is “the toughest and most comprehensively safeguarded assisted dying bill in the world.”

Yet the bill lacks at least a dozen important safeguards present in other jurisdictions: Image
2. McArthur claims (PA, today): “This bill has the overwhelming support of a significant majority of Scots”.

But polling has only been on the *principle*, not this bill.

UK polls show repeatedly that support falls steeply when you get into specifics:
Read 6 tweets
Jan 14
Why is Lord Falconer trying to limit the scrutiny process for his bill?

Here are ten moments so far when Lords scrutiny has exposed the reality of the legislation:
1. Falconer admits people will die under the bill because they are poor.

“Where the reason…is because in your mind you are influenced by your circumstances—for example, because you are poor—should you be barred from having an assisted death...? In my view [you should] not.”
2. Falconer admits people will die because of lack of access to care.

“Of course nobody wants the absence of palliative care to be the reason you apply...

“But we have to give everybody this choice on the basis of the way the world is for them.”
Read 11 tweets
Dec 12, 2025
What are the Lords scrutinising, anyway?

Here are just 15 of the most important subjects they’re debating. For the most part these are issues ignored or swerved by the Commons: Image
1. AS driven by poverty (eg Tanni Grey-Thompson’s amendment, no. 58 on the list).

The Lords are querying whether someone with a six-month prognosis should be receiving lethal drugs when their reason is being poor.

So far bill supporters say this is fine:
2. AS driven by lack of access to palliative care (eg Brown 51).

Peers are concerned that people will request lethal drugs because they can’t access good care.

So far Keir Starmer’s government has pushed hard against strengthening palliative care access:
Read 17 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!

:(