The following message was sent from Care NOT Killing UK.
 |
| Gordon Macdonald CEO Care NOT Killing |
The Senedd cannot block the Bill outright.
But it can withhold “legislative consent.”
If consent is refused, assisted suicide in Wales would likely be restricted to private providers only — limiting its reach and protecting many vulnerable people from pressure to end their own lives.
While restricted provision is not the outcome we ultimately seek, it would significantly reduce the harm should the Leadbeater assisted suicide Bill become law. Countless lives would be saved as assisted suicide wouldn’t become part of routine healthcare. It would also protect thousands of healthcare staff from potentially being indirectly involved in the process.
Wales has rejected assisted suicide before
In October 2024, the Senedd voted against legalising assisted dying: Against: 26
In favour: 19 - Abstentions: 9
Article - Great news: Welsh parliament rejects assisted suicide (Read).
Plaid Cymru’s Delyth Jewell, who voted against, warned:
“My fear with this motion — well, my terror, really — is not so much with how it will begin as with how it will end.”She expressed concern that people may feel pressured to end their lives because they lack adequate palliative care or fear being a burden.
Link to Members of the Welsh Senedd (Contact List)
She is right to be concerned.
Hospice UK estimates that 1 in 4 people who could benefit from palliative or end-of-life care do not receive it — around 100,000 people each year.
Without guaranteed access to high-quality care, “choice” can quickly become pressure to succumb to an assisted death.
This time, the vote could go either way.
Tomorrow’s Motion presents MSs with an important opportunity to send a clear signal from Wales to Peers at Westminster that the Leadbeater assisted suicide Bill is dangerous and should fall.
Serious Reasons Why the Bill Puts People at Risk:
1. Safeguards Too Weak to Prevent Coercion
(High risk of coercion or undue influence on people who are frail, isolated, disabled, poor, or feel like a burden)
2. Eligibility Will Likely Expand Over Time
(Children, people with a mental illness or disability could eventually be included, as has happened around the world where assisted suicide has been legalised)
3. “Terminal Illness” Defined Too Broadly
(The definition may include conditions that are not inherently fatal—e.g. diabetes)
4. High Court Safeguard Removed
(Replaced with ‘expert’ panels, drastically reducing independent oversight)
5. Doctors Allowed to Suggest Assisted Suicide Unprompted
(In Canada, this has led to patients being repeatedly offered MAID despite insisting they were NOT interested)
6. Depression and Coercion May Go Undetected
(Studies show clinicians frequently miss depression in medically ill patients. Doctors only need to be satisfied “on the balance of probability” that a request is voluntary.)
7. No Clear Protocol for Lethal Drugs
(Drugs are not specified, and evidence from other jurisdictions suggests a potential for distressing deaths)
8. Capacity Safeguards for Disabled People Miss The Point
(How can individuals – e.g. with autism or a mental disorder – truly make a “clear, settled and informed” decision)
9. Conscience Protections for NHS Staff Are Weak
(Although doctors are not compelled to participate directly, they will likely be obliged to refer patients to assisted suicide services, so they will still be involved)
10. Palliative Care Gaps Remain Unaddressed
The Bill comes before improving palliative care services. Without guaranteed access to high-quality end-of-life care, many will feel ‘forced’ to ‘choose’ an assisted death)
11. Hospices Could Be Forced to Facilitate Assisted Death
(They would have no right to refuse to facilitate assisted suicide. Amendments seeking to give institutions an opt-out were rejected. This could mean: Hospices being required to allow assisted deaths on their premises.
Public funding being threatened if they refuse
In addition, religious institutions may be forced to participate or face severe penalties.
Link to Members of the Welsh Senedd (Contact List)
2 comments:
These are eleven POWERFUL reasons! -- Thomas Lester
ANY KILLING LAWS WOULD MAKE ANY CITIZEN PRESSURED TO END THEIR LIVES REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND THAT IS NOT "CHOICE, AUTONOMY, DIGNITY" OR ANY THING ELSE THE SUPPORTERS OF KILLING STATE BUT TERRORIZING, INTIMIDATION, ABUSE, NEGLECT, HARASSMENT AND CITIZENS DESERVE BETTER! SAFEGUARDS ARE JUST A TERM TO MAKE IT SEEM LIKE IT ADDS PROTECTION TO THE INNOCENT-VULNERABLE BUT IT DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! I DEFINITELY AGREE THAT “TERMINAL ILLNESS” IS DEFINED TO BROADLY AS WE HEAR OF IT EVERYDAY! AND NO CITIZENS DESERVES TO BE PUT IN A PLACE WHERE THEY DO NOT RECEIVE PROPER CARE THAT IS LIFE-AFFIRMING BECAUSE OF LAW-MAKERS WHO CHOOSE TO ACCEPT THAT KILLING IS PERMISSIBLE ON THEIR OWN DISTORTIONS; THE POISON IN THE DRUGS USED TO KILL ARE VERY DISTRESSFUL TO HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL MAKE-UP AS WE KNOW FROM PHYSICIANS WHO ACTUALLY STUDIED THIS BECAUSE THE ISSUE WITH THIS IS THAT THE KILLING CULTS FORGE WITH DISHONESTY THIS WELL-KNOWN, ACCURATE AND OBVIOUS FACT AS THEY ARE THE ONE'S "SELF-REPORTING" THEIR HOMICIDES IN MOST COUNTRIES STATISTICAL REPORTINGS AND ALSO LOBBY "MEDICAL JOURNALS" WITH THE SAME MISREPRESENTATIONS AND FICTION; NO LIFE-AFFIRMING CARE FACILITIES SHOULD EVER BE THREATENED ANYWHERE THAT THEY WILL NOT RECEIVE PUBLIC FUNDING IF THEY DO NOT SURRENDER TO KILLING AND HOMICIDE AS THAT IN ITSELF IS HYPOCRITICAL TO THE TERM USED AS "SAFEGUARDS" AND THIS NEEDS TO ALSO BE ADDRESSED AS A CRITICAL POINT FOR ALL KILLING BILLS AND LAWS ALLOWED ANYWHERE AND FOR ANY CIRCUMSTANCES! KILLING BILLS AND LAWS SHOULD NOT EVEN EXIST AT ALL AS THEY ARE NOT SENSIBLE, LOGICAL, HUMANITARIAN FOR ANY CIRCUMSTANCES ANYWHERE, AND TO EVEN HAVE BILLS SUGGESTING SUCH REFERENCES AND IN WEALTHY DEVELOPED NATIONS IS A DISGRACE!
Post a Comment