The UK will debate assisted suicide bill this year.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I am currently in the UK on a speaking tour speaking about Canada's experience with euthanasia (MAiD).

The Care Not Killing Alliance announced on October 3rd that Labour MP Kim Leadbeater said that she will introduce a Private Member’s Bill (she has the first private members bill spot) to instroduce an assisted suicide bill.

The Leadbeater bill has not been released yet. 

There have been several assisted suicide bills debated in the UK over the past few years. The last bill was debated in 2015 which was overwhelmingly defeated in the House of Commons. But sadly times are different after the election of Keir Starmer as Prime Minister.

Starmer, the leader of Britain's Labour Party, is a long-time promoter of assisted suicide. During the election Starmer promised that he would introduce a bill and allow a free-vote on assisted suicide. The July 4 election resulted in the Labour Party winning a massive majority with 411 out of 650 parliamentary seats.

After the election Starmer reiterated his support for assisted suicide and promised a free-vote within the year. BBC news reported:

Sir Keir Starmer has insisted he remains committed to giving MPs a free vote on assisted dying laws at some point.

The prime minister said he would provide parliamentary time for a vote if a backbench MPs proposed changing the law, but stressed the government had other "priorities for the first year or so".

In the House of Lords, Lord Falconer introduced his private members bill in the second spot. Falconer, who has sponsored previous assisted suicide bills, introduced the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Adults bill on Friday July 26.

I reported on October 2 that Scotland's assisted suicide bill is likely to die a natural death. It is possible that Leadbeaters bill will attempt to legalize assisted suicide in all of the UK, including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Britain needs to fully examine Canada's experience with euthanasia and reject it. Hopefully the House of Lords will defeat the Falconer assisted suicide bill.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition will keep you up-to-date on the British assisted suicide bills. We will continue to work with the Care Not Killing Alliance and other groups in the UK that oppose assisted suicide.

Right-to-die legislation must consider concerns of African Americans

This article was published by Bridge Michigan on September 25, 2024.

Terri Laws

By Terri Laws, associate professor of African and African American studies at the University of Michigan-Dearborn.

In the 1990s, Royal Oak’s Dr. Jack Kevorkian put a national spotlight on the debate over the right of terminally ill patients to die with the aid of a physician. As Democrats reclaim their majority in the state Legislature, Michigan may be at the epicenter of this conversation again.

Last fall, a group of Democrats introduced the Michigan Death With Dignity Act, which would legalize physician-assisted dying, also known as medical aid in dying. Patients with a terminal condition, expected to die within six months, would be able to request that a participating doctor write them a prescription for drugs that, when self-administered and ingested, would allow the patient to die on the date of their choosing.

Many Michiganders will see this legislation as reasonable and compassionate. To others, however, often people of color, this legislation is more complicated. Some fear doctors and insurance companies may deny them lifesaving treatments and steer them toward assisted suicide instead. Others are concerned that legalization will normalize this type of death as the “correct” way to approach the end of life, when their cultural beliefs and practices tell them otherwise. Central to these views are issues around equitable access to care — and of trust.

According to a 2022 Pew Research report, nearly a quarter of the US population say they have “not too much or no confidence in medical scientists to act in the best interests of the public.” For African Americans, this mistrust has deep origins in exploitative experimental medicine and undertreatment. The best-known example — of far too many — is the 40-year long Tuskegee Syphilis Study authorized and conducted by the United States Public Health Service. Black men in rural Alabama, diagnosed with syphilis, were recruited into the study and were left untreated so physicians could follow the progression of the disease and conduct an autopsy once they died. The “study” continued even after penicillin became standard treatment in the 1950s and through 15 articles published in medical journals. In light of these horrifying details, it should be easy to see how rational many African Americans’ distrust of the traditional health care system is.

The effort to pass MAiD in Michigan is part of a larger, well-organized right-to-die movement. Legalization advocates move from state to state lobbying elected officials with template bills, which include the promise of legislative safeguards. They also point to public polls that measure the popularity of attitudes that support the legislation. But attitudes are not practice. Safeguards only put people at ease when they trust the entity creating them and that the people within those entities will enforce them. Data from states that have adopted right-to-die legislation shows that people of color are largely steering clear of pursuing a deliberate death. For example, in racially and ethnically diverse California, the Bureau of the Census reports that 35% of persons in the state selected their racial identity as white alone, yet public health reporting shows 88% of MAiD requests come from whites. A similar pattern of use has emerged across the country where the practice is legal.

A lesser-known outcome of Tuskegee is that it ultimately became one of several research studies later recognized as so egregious that it contributed to Congressional hearings and legislation that, ultimately, led to the national commission that approved the research standards and ethical framework that the US, and much of the world, lives with today. Passage of the Medical Aid in Dying Act in Michigan must include trustworthy safeguards, including genuine opportunities for community conversations and input — both before and after enactment — and funding for public education.

It is worth noting that people of color are not the only ones with reservations about MAiD. Those with less education and the un- or under-insured, not to mention persons who have disabilities, have expressed concerns as well.

For advocates of MAiD, the right to ingest medication that may bring about a “good death” seems morally right, compassionate, just and a matter of autonomy. But if we are to legalize the right to die in Michigan in a way that does not exacerbate distrust and inequity, we need to acknowledge and address Michiganders’ differing historical attitudes, cultural perspectives and lived experiences around end of life care.

Netherlands euthanasia death of 17-year-old criticised

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The DutchNewsNL reported that the Dutch federation of doctors (KNMG) rebuked 14 psychiatrists for sending a letter to urge the prosecution office to investigate the euthanasia death of a 17-year-old.

The DutchNewsNL reported that:

The case revolves around Milou, who had suffered from depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts from the age of 11 following sexual abuse. She was again sexually abused in an institution by another patient.

After years of treatment and various suicide attempts, she chose euthanasia at the age of 17 on the grounds of unbearable mental suffering.

The letter from the 14 psychiatrists that asked the prosecution office to investigate the euthanasia death stated:

However, prominent psychiatrists disagreed and wrote to the public prosecution office, questioning the right of a minor to opt for euthanasia and whether it is right to assume that mental suffering cannot be cured.

In the letter they mention the “widespread promotion of euthanasia” which in their opinion could lead to “the unnecessary death” of young patients.

The DutchNewsNL also reported that:

Professor of psychiatry Damiaan Denys, who signed the letter to the public prosecution office, said the KNMG’s reaction was “unnecessary, unwise and late”, but admitted the letter may not have been the best way of calling attention to “the ease with which euthanasia is mentioned for young people with mental problems”

Since oversight of the Netherlands euthanasia law is based on an after the death reporting system, there has been almost no investigations by the prosecution office into controversial euthanasia deaths.

The KNMG should have stayed out of this issue. Urging the prosecution office to investigate a controversial euthanasia death should be welcome based on assuring that the law is being properly followed. These are questions of life and death.

Scotland's assisted suicide bill will die a natural death.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On March 28, 2024, Liam McArthur (LibDem) MSP introduced the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill bill that was expected to receive its first debate sometime this fall in Scotland's legislature (Holyrood).

On October 1, 2024 Scottish Health Secretary, Neil Gray said that Liam McArthur’s Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill was “outside the legislative competence.” Therefore, McArthur's assisted suicide bill will die because sections of the bill are outside of the jurisdiction of Scotland's legislature.

Simon Johnson reported for the Telegraph that:

In a memo to the Scottish Parliament’s health committee, he said the Bill’s proposal that ministers specify which drugs can be used to end people’s lives related to Westminster’s powers over “medicines, medical supplies and poisons”.

The document also warned that the legislation’s plan to shift the role of medics from “protecting/enhancing patients’ lives to assisting in termination of life” could change reserved UK regulation of health professionals.

The memo argued that “further processes” would have to be gone through to bring the Bill within Holyrood’s competence.

Keir Starmer, leader of Britain's Labour Party, has been a long-time promoter of assisted suicide. During the election Starmer promised that he would introduce a bill and allow a free-vote on legalizing assisted suicide in the UK. The July 4 election resulted in the Labour Party winning a massive majority with 411 out of 650 parliamentary seats.

After the election BBC news reported that Starmer reiterated his support for assisted suicide and promised a free-vote within the year.

It is likely that Scotland will not consider an assisted suicide bill until after London (Westminster) has debated the issue.

More information on this topic:

• Scotland's deceptive euthanasia bill redefines terminal illness to include people with disabilities (Link).

Euthanasia advocates have an ideology of illogical ideas.

Meghan Schrader

By Meghan Schrader

Meghan is an autistic person who is an instructor at E4 - University of Texas (Austin) and an EPC-USA board member.

The world’s most ardent euthanasia advocates have built an ideology based on totally illogical ideas; like the premise that it’s not bigoted to kill members of a disenfranchised group because they are members of that group. Or, the idea that voluntary euthanasia is not suicide, no matter how permissive the euthanasia program is. Or the proposition that euthanizing homeless people is compassionate rather than bullying and nihilistic. 

The leaders of "Euthanasia Land" like to make up their own facts. I think that this behavior shows what can happen when a person lives their entire life in an upper middle class, able-bodied academic bubble. Such people are used to having their ideas accepted as facts, so they feel free to construct blantantly false narratives.

Perhaps one of the most egregious offenders in this regard is euthanasia advocate James Downar. He seems to like to make up his own facts the way some people like to write poetry or paint.

In August of 2024 Downar posted something on X about euthanasia opponents that is laughably nonsensical. He posted, 

“Worse from my perspective is the rash of "advocacy" groups who only seem focused on blocking MAID laws, but are largely silent on the policy issues that actually affect the health of PWDs and the chronically ill (social supports, vaccines).Curious agenda.”

The absurdity and arrogance of that statement is truly breathtaking. Yes, James Downar, all the disability justice euthanasia opponents-those of us who have published articles in the field of disability studies, those of us who have published books about disability justice, those of us we who have been arrested at demonstrations for care attendant services, those of us working as disability justice attorneys, we who are special education teachers, those of us working to advance the condition of BIPOC people with disabilities, those of us who have spoken to the United Nations about disability rights, we who are disabled and bear the daily brunt of systemic ableism-somehow have done nothing to achieve a better world for people with disabilities. But you, James Downar, an ablebodied, affluent euthanasia devotee, are a disability justice sage!

That’s a totally illogical premise, and Downar is quite bold to articulate such canards. It’s like someone looking at the sky on a clear day and saying that the sky is green. I think this behavior is probably the result of being a wealthy and powerful person: James Downar is used to other powerful people heaping praise on him; which gives him a sense of permission to make fallacious claims.

But, Downar’s propensity to espouse fabrications about the disability rights movement isn’t ethically defensible, and he isn’t actually entitled to attack disability justice advocates with lies while virtue signaling about what a fine upstanding social justice warrior he is.