The UK will soon debate assisted suicide. Canada's euthanasia regime should cause caution.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On October 9, 2024, The European Conservative published an interview by Jonathon Van Maren with Alexander Raikin. Raikin has recently published a research article titled: The Rise of Euthanasia in Canada: From Exceptional to Routine. Van Maren begins the  article by commentary on the fact that an assisted suicide bill will soon be introduced in the UK.

I recently completed a speaking tour in the UK to awaken people to the reality of Canada's euthanasia experience. Van Maren writes in relation to the upcoming UK assisted suicide bill:

...Keir Starmer, is planning to fast-track a bill legalizing assisted suicide, telling the BBC on October 4 that he is “pleased” to be able to do so. Euthanasia activists have been waiting for this moment and are ramping up their campaigns. Labour MP Kim Leadbeater wrote an editorial for the Guardian in which she stated, with admirable honesty: “Life is precious. But so is choice.” She makes it clear—although without moral clarity—that between life and choice, we must always pick choice. 

Starmer has promised to allot extra time to enable Leadbeater's assisted suicide bill to be debated and likely receive a second reading vote before Christmas. Van Maren continues:

Wes Streeting, Starmer’s Secretary of State for Health, has stated that he opposes legalizing euthanasia because the state of end-of-life care in the UK is horrifying—and because the notion of choice, considering the availability of palliative care, is farcical: “When I think about this question of burden, I do not think that palliative care … in this country is in a condition yet where we are giving people the freedom to choose without being coerced by the lack of support available.” Similar concerns were raised in a 2023 parliamentary report that emphasized the need for “major improvements” in end-of-life care.

Labour’s disabilities secretary, Sir Stephen Timms, also expressed his opposition. In 2022, he stated, “If we were to legalise assisted dying, we would impose an awful moral dilemma on every conscientious frail person nearing the end of their life … If ending their life early were legally permissible, many who do not want to end their life would feel under great, probably irresistible, pressure to do so. There is no way to stop that happening.” At least five senior ministers have already indicated that they plan to vote against assisted suicide.

Starmer, the leader of the Labour party, won a massive majority government. One of Starmer's election promises was to bring forth an assisted suicide bill. Van Maren continues:

The most insidious aspect of this is that Starmer knows what will happen if assisted suicide and euthanasia are legalized. His own health secretary has made it clear. So has the disabilities secretary. In fact, Canada—a Commonwealth country—has provided a singular case study over the past several years, with many euthanasia horror stories being featured prominently in the UK press. None of those supporting euthanasia have taken the trouble to rebut the assertion that ‘choice’ will play little role in many deaths. Considering the prevalence and prominence of the evidence, it is difficult not to conclude that they believe that is an acceptable price to pay.

Starmer is a long-time supporter of euthanasia and assisted suicide. The UK assisted suicide bill can be defeated if, during the debate, Canada's experience with euthanasia is continuously brought up. 

The UK cannot ignore how Canada's euthanasia law is out of control.

The many new Labour party MP's who were recently elected in the UK need to be open-minded and willing to research Canada's euthanasia reality. There are ample Canadian examples of what can happen when euthanasia or assisted suicide are legalized. 

Letter opposing UK assisted suicide bill.

People who oppose assisted suicide in the UK need to write letters to their representatives. 

Letter from Ann Farmer to UK political representatives.

I am writing to you once again regarding news reports about the proposed Private Members’ Bill submitted by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater to legalise ‘assisted dying’, aka assisted suicide. 

As a disabled person I am very concerned about this Bill, not only for myself but for vulnerable groups, particularly the elderly, sick and disabled, especially given severe pressure on the NHS, which Sir Keir Starmer has referred to as ‘broken’, as well as a recent Marie Curie report exposing significant shortcomings in palliative and end-of-life care in this country. 

The risks of legalizing assisted suicide were highlighted by the actor and disability rights campaigner Liz Carr in her recent BBC One documentary ‘Better Off Dead?’ (youtube link) which I encourage you to watch if you have not already done so. It warns of the dangers of such legislation for the disabled and poor, dangers highlighted in a recent article by Sir Stephen Timms MP.  Such warnings are based on the reality in countries that have legalized ‘assisted dying’, only to see a steady relaxation of the law; indeed, it is now clear that the allegedly strict safeguards accompanying such laws are considered necessary to calm public fears, enabling the passage of the law, which is then broadened in scope.

Furthermore, despite campaigners’ claims that ‘assisted dying’ enjoys public support, a recent opinion poll found that this issue ranked 22nd out of a list of 23 possible priorities for the new Government. 

The same poll also highlighted public concerns over the practicalities of legalizing assisted suicide, with over half of respondents revealing fears that there are too many complicating factors to make assisted suicide a practical and safe option.

Although a recent ‘Citizens’ Jury’ supported legalising assisted suicide, doubts were cast on the impartiality of the Jury’s findings after revelations that Danielle Hamm, the Director of the organisation commissioning the project, was previously the head of ‘Compassion in Dying’, sister charity to assisted suicide pressure group Dignity in Dying. In addition, the project was funded by a charity that had previously given a significant grant “towards work on legalising assisted dying”, while a majority of Jury members seem to have held settled views in support of legalising euthanasia as well as assisted suicide, with more members also favouring ‘assisted dying’ for under-18s and the non-terminally ill.

Clearly, Citizens’ Juries do not reliably reflect public opinion.  In contrast, whenever Parliament has studied these issues in depth, objectively considering the risks, it has decisively rejected legalization, as with the last such Bill in 2015, when more Labour MPs and more Conservative MPs voted against legalization than in favour, while only three Liberal Democrat MPs supported it.

I would be grateful for your reassurance that you will oppose rushing through such dangerous and complex legislation into law and will do whatever you can to ensure Parliament focuses instead on measures to provide authentic end-of-life care to all who need it.

Thank you for your consideration and for all your efforts, and I look forward to receiving your response.

Yours sincerely, 

Ann Farmer
Woodford Green
Essex IG8 7NQ.

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.

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).

Liberal Democrat (UK) leader is skeptical about assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Faith Ridler reported for Sky News (UK) on September 16, 2024 that: 

Sir Ed Davey

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey is 'sceptical' of the case for assisted dying for 'quite personal' reasons. Ridler reported that during an interview with Sky News' deputy political editor Sam Coates, Davey stated that MP's must deeply and carefully listen to all sides of the debate, considering it's outcome. Davey also urged MP's not to rush a vote on assisted suicide.

Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party, won a majority government in the last election. Starmer, who is a long-time supporter of assisted suicide, stated that he may fast-track legislation to legalize assisted suicide.

Ridler reported that Davey told Coates in an interview that:

He said: "My concerns are both quite personal. I asked my mother as a teenager when she was dying of bone cancer. And I saw someone with a very painful disease."

The Liberal Democrat leader said that through nursing and palliative care "she was able to enjoy life and be with us".

Separately, Sir Ed has concerns about the pressure legalising assisted dying could place on elderly people.

He said this wouldn't "necessarily" be from relatives, but "from the inside, internally, which they may not express".

Ridler stated that Sir Ed Davey is a skeptic concerning assisted suicide and believes that any vote on the issue must be a free vote.

Ridler pointed out that Scotland's Liberal Democrat MSP, Liam McArthur, is leading efforts to change the law in Scotland with a private member's bill on the issue.

Governments in the UK need to examine the experience with Canada's euthanasia law and outright reject legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Conservative leadership (UK) candidates who oppose assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The 2024 UK Conservative Party leadership election began on 5 July 2024 when Prime Minister Rishi Sunak declared his intention to resign as Conservative Party leader following the party's defeat in the July 4, 2024 general election.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer (Labour) who won the election has been a long-time supporter of assisted suicide.

Kitty Donaldson, the INews Chief Political Commentator wrote on September 5, 2024 that Robert Jenrick, the front-runner in the Conservative leadership campaign, has changed his position on assisted suicide. Donaldson reported:

Jenrick, who emerged as the front-runner after comfortably coming top in the first round of voting among Tory MPs on Wednesday, has been on a political journey. Once seen as a liberal Tory and close friend of Rishi Sunak’s – the two played computer games together – Jenrick both stormed out of Sunak’s government over immigration while also becoming more socially conservative over the last few years. Despite voting for legalising assisted dying in 2015, his about-turn has been informed by Canada’s experience of changing the law, his allies said.

Jenrick is one of many politicians who may philosophically support assisted suicide but based on Canada's experience, is now opposing it. It is unknown whether his position is based on winning the leadership race or is a real change in position.

Donaldson also reported that Conservative leadership candidate James Cleverly remains opposed to assisted suicide.

Fellow leadership contender James Cleverly voted against assisted dying in 2015 and is understood not to have changed his position, but wants to support improving palliative care.

Even though Tom Tugendhat is currently running fourth in the leadership race, he has also voted against assisted suicide in the past.

The position of the next UK Conservative leader is important since the Labour Party won the last election and it's leader, Keir Starmer, is a long time supporter of assisted suicide. 

We expect a bill to legalize assisted suicide will be debate in Britain in 2025.

Disabled campaigners' warn about Lord Falconer's aim to legalise assisted suicide in the UK

Not Dead Yet UK published the following article on the Falconer assisted suicide bill.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Charlie Falconer) introduced a Private Members Bill (there’s an explanation of what they are here) to make it legal to assist people who are terminally ill to die.

As a group of disability rights campaigners, Not Dead Yet UK are deeply concerned about this course of action.

Like many disabled people, we are conscious that attempts to build legalised suicide into healthcare can be profoundly discriminatory – if a non-disabled person wants to die, their doctor does not give them the means to kill themselves.

We want the same care and respect to be given to terminally ill people if they are suicidal.

Rather than legalising the suicides of disabled people, we argue that the only safe way forward is better investment in palliative care and a commitment to improving the things that people often cite when they apply to die in other parts of the world, such as a lack of dignity and feeling like a burden.

Can an assisted suicide law ever be “safe”?

Charlie Falconer told The Guardian, 

“My bill is designed for people who will die in the near future. I don’t think the state should be helping people who are not terminally ill to take their own lives.”

However, this does not reassure us.

We have seen, again and again, across the world, that laws that begin with relatively strict parameters, such as terminal illness, expand and expand until people with treatable conditions, children, and people who simply can’t afford accessible housing end up being approved to die by assisted suicide.

While Falconer assures us there will be “safeguards”, in reality, these safeguards are virtually impossible to implement effectively. Even the idea that doctors can accurately predict when a person has six months left to live does not reflect reality.

And in a world where there is growing awareness of coercive control, and where we know that many do not receive adequate or appropriate medical care, pain management or social care, we are creating the conditions for people to find themselves agreeing that yes, they should probably die, including to avoid feeling like a burden, when providing them with what they actually need to live could allow them to enjoy and participate in their own life again.

What if good care stopped us from wanting to die? Where are the proposed laws to provide everybody with compassionate and appropriate care instead?

Can Falconer succeed?

Falconer has already failed at changing laws in the area of assisted suicide six times, as detailed here, but he hopes that this iteration of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill will be the one that enables assisted suicide for terminally ill people.

Private members’ bills, especially from Lords, are generally thought to be an ineffective way to create a new law. According to Politics Home, “almost all Private Members’ Bills fail. In all sessions of each Parliament between 1997 and 2015 generally only between three per cent and six per cent of bills succeeded”

What could be different this time is that Keir Starmer, the new Prime Minister, seems to be keen on legalising assisted suicide. Earlier this year, he said that if he became prime minister, he would ensure parliamentary time was made available to debate the issue and he would allow a free vote (where politicians vote according to their conscience and personal beliefs, not according to what their political party wants).

Falconer told LBC that he “strongly feels the time for this reform has come”, but presumably he felt the same when he introduced attempts to change the law in 2009, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2019 and 2022 too.

However, with the Prime Minister on side, this time, disabled people could find ourselves under threat in an unprecedented way in this country. Follow Not Dead Yet UK on Twitter / X to stay on top of our campaign to ensure that disabled people are helped to live, not to die.

Britain to debate assisted suicide bill this year

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

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 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".

Starmer continued:

"As to the timing of it, I haven't made a commitment on that and I don't want to.

"I'm not going back on the commitment I made, it's just we have got to set out priorities for the first year or so, but I will double down on the commitment that we are going to do that, we will allow time for a private member's bill, and there will be a free vote."

After the British election, a "lottery" determines the order for introducing private members bills. In the House of Lords, Lord Falconer received the right to introduce his private members bill second. Falconer, who has sponsored previous assisted suicide bills, will introduce the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Adults bill on Friday July 26.

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. I am scheduled to speak in London England on September 28 and Glasgow Scotland on October 5, 2024.

No safe way to legalise euthanasia

Kevin Yuill, emeritus professor of history at the University of Sunderland and CEO of Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (HAASE), wrote an article, published in Spiked on June 18, 2024.

by Kevin Yuill

For the first time in history, both main candidates in a UK General Election are openly in favour of legalising assisted suicide or euthanasia (ASE). Whether Labour or the Conservatives win in July, the Suicide Act 1961 will likely be called into review.

Last week, prime minister Rishi Sunak was asked by reporters at the G7 summit in Italy if he would vote for a change in the law on ‘assisted dying’. He replied: ‘I’m not opposed to it, in principle, and it’s a question of making sure the safeguards are in place and are effective.’

This may be a moot point, given that Sunak is trailing Labour leader Keir Starmer by 20 points in the polls. Besides, Sunak’s position was carefully couched. Rather than giving his full-throated support, he said he is ‘not opposed’. But that didn’t stop Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, from being able to say that, whoever gets in, ‘neither are opposed to reform’ of the UK’s current ban on ASE.

Perhaps the one thing we know about the infamously slippery Starmer is that he has a track record of supporting ASE. In March this year, he said was personally in favour of legalisation and he promised that MPs would get a free vote on it in the next parliament. Still, even he said that any change in the law must be accompanied by ‘safeguards with teeth to protect the vulnerable’ from abuse. These imagined safeguards are certainly doing a lot of heavy lifting. But could they actually work?

Looking at the evidence, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the only ‘safeguard’ that really works or lasts is the present law, which prevents ASE entirely. In every country where ASE is legal, the safeguards have fallen rapidly and initially low numbers of assisted deaths have surged.

Just look at the example of Australia, where ASE is largely legalised. Since legislation was passed in 2017, we have heard a constant clamour for more ‘improvements’ in the law, as pro-euthanasia organisation Go Gentle Australia disingenuously phrases it. What this really means is expansions of the current eligibility criteria. Last week, Australian publication the Age complained that, in the state of Victoria, many of the 68 safeguards that had reassured Victorians that ASE would be safe ‘are now obsolete and severely limit access’. The Age insisted that doctors should be allowed to initiate conversations about euthanasia and called for the removal of other ‘unnecessary hurdles’ to ASE. It is not difficult to see how this could lead to vulnerable people being pressured into accepting an assisted death.

Even in the US state of Oregon – which proponents of ASE like to hold up as evidence that safeguards work – the minimum period between a request for an assisted suicide and a patient’s death was reduced from 14 days to 48 hours in 2021.

Everywhere that ASE has been legalised, the eligibility criteria has ended up expanding. As psychiatrists Mark Komrad and Annette Hanson note in the Psychiatric Times this month, ASE legislation begins ‘with the “low-hanging fruit” of end-stage or terminal illness and gradually broadens’ to encompass other non-physical illnesses or conditions.

In Colorado, there have been cases where people have been helped to die because of anorexia. Dutch law similarly allows ASE for a variety of non-physical ailments, extending even to allow the killing last month of a physically healthy 29-year-old who suffered from severe depression. In the Netherlands in 2010, there were two cases of ASE involving psychiatric suffering. In 2023, there were 138, making up 1.5 per cent of the 9,068 euthanasia deaths.

In Canada, ASE was legalised in 2016 under the medical assistance in dying (MAID) programme. This was initially only intended for people whose deaths were ‘reasonably foreseeable’. But a court decision forced the government to expand its criteria effectively to all those with a permanent disability.

Safeguards simply do not work, even when they supposedly have ‘teeth’. When legalised, ASE rapidly turns death into a form of treatment for anyone deemed to be living an ‘inconvenient’ life – from the mentally unwell to the physically disabled.

The only good news is that, after 4 July, there will be a debate both in and outside of parliament. We should use this opportunity to counter the emotional appeals of our political class with the tragic realities of places where ASE is legal. Legalising assisted suicide is not so much a slippery slope as a moral precipice.

Better off Dead? documentary to be aired on BBC1 on May 14.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Liz Carr

Liz Carr, who is an actress, comedian and disability rights activist, produced a documentary that she titled Better off Dead? that will be airing on BBC1 on Tuesday May 14 at 9 pm (UK). Carr may be best known for her role as Clarissa Mullery on the BBC series Silent Witness.

John Pring interviewed Carr for Disability News Service for an article that was published on May 9, 2024. Pring begins with Carr telling him how frighting the concept of legalizing assisted suicide is for people with disabilities, within the concept of the failing National Health Service (UK):

Legalising assisted suicide, she said, would be even more dangerous at a time when “we are absolutely removing our welfare state, and we are dismantling our incredible NHS”.

Last week, at a protest outside the Houses of Parliament, she told DNS she was terrified by the government’s latest proposals to cut spending on personal independence payment.

She said: “I don’t even think the other side will make the connection over how terrifying that feels to disabled people yet again.

“We know disabled people have killed themselves because of DWP reforms in the past.

Carr speaks about her experience with interviewing Amir Farsoud, a Canadian with disabilities who sought euthanasia based on fears of homelessness. Pring reports:

“That’s what terrifies me: the kind of thing happening in Canada where people for socio-economic reasons are choosing to end their lives through euthanasia.”

In Canada, she interviewed Amir Farsoud, a disabled man from Ontario, who requested an assisted suicide because his landlord was planning to sell off his apartment building, and he was terrified at the prospect of being left homeless on the freezing streets.

He eventually changed his mind about seeking an assisted suicide after a crowd-funding effort raised tens of thousands of dollars to support him.

Farsoud told Carr that it was easier and quicker in Canada to apply for medical assistance in dying (assisted suicide) than disability benefits.

Carr comments on Keir Starmer, the leader of Britains Labour party, who is pro-euthanasia and currently leading in the polls, if an election were to happen:

She said: “I’ve always been a little bit worried about Starmer getting in power, because he introduced the guidelines [on prosecuting cases of assisted suicide, in 2010] when he was director of public prosecutions.

“I’ve known he’s been pro, we all have, for over 10 years.”

She said this was “quite frightening” and “makes it difficult for voters like me to know what to do for the next election”.

Asked if she had a message for Starmer, she said: “I would say, please watch the documentary.

Carr, who is an athiest, said that people who are concerned about the legalization of assisted suicide shouldn't sideline the opposition because they are marginalized or religious because there are many people who are concerned about legalizing assisted suicide.

Pring then spoke to Carr about her meeting with Canadian euthanasia doctor Ellen Wiebe:

She also spoke of the “chilling” attitude of Canadian doctor Dr Ellen Wiebe – who is herself disabled – who has provided assisted suicide to hundreds of Canadians since it was legalised and is shown in the documentary telling Carr she was “so glad, so glad” that they had medical assistance in dying laws in Canada.

She told her: “I love my job. This is the very best work I have ever done.”

Wiebe is also shown saying that she had never had so many grateful patients, which Carr said was “one of the most terrifying things in the documentary”.

She said: “When she says that doctors like grateful patients, that is chilling to me.

“And as somebody that’s had a lot of involvement with, you know, medics, that really frightens me.”

Pring then reported on Carr's message at a preview event for the documentary:

“If we ask the question, ‘Do you want to stop dying people’s suffering?’ everybody has to say yes to that, or you’re a psychopath.

“We all, I believe, want everyone to have a good death, so the answer is how we do that.

“And the only difference between me and [those supporting legalisation] is how you do that. That’s the only difference.

“I don’t want people to suffer. I want people to have a good death. I just think people will suffer more if we introduce assisted suicide.”

Carr commented on the media reports that indicate that legalizing assisted suicide is inevitable. Pring reports:

she said there was “nothing inevitable about it, nothing at all… I still think it’s time for a conversation and it’s not inevitable.”

Carr said she did not understand why those fighting for legalisation did not put their resources into pushing for improved healthcare and palliative care, or “into giving people choice and control in their lives”.

She said: “Because choice isn’t choice when you’ve got no choice. It absolutely isn’t.

“And I meet people in my life who are suffering absolutely because they do not have choices in their life.”

Pring reports that Carr produced the documentary to get people with disabilities prominent in the debate:

One of the things she wanted to do with the documentary, she said, was to ensure that the disabled activists who are “a big part of my life” and “who have waited for this voice for years… feel heard and seen”.

A series of disabled actors, artists and activists opposed to legalisation are either seen on film or interviewed in the documentary, including Lisa Hammond, Ellen Clifford, Jamie Hale, Paula Peters, Eleanor Lisney, Penny Pepper and disabled peers Baroness [Jane] Campbell and Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson.

Pring concludes the interview with Carr stating that her interview with Melanie Reid, who supports assisted suicide, primarily focused on the experiences of being two disabled women, living in contemporary society, and the struggles and the fights to get our care needs met”.

The documentary, Better off Dead? creates common ground for people with disabilities to oppose the legalization of assisted suicide. 

Previous articles about Liz Carr:

• Laws against assisted suicide provide equal protection (Link).
• Liz Carr address to Victoria Australia parliament on assisted suicide (Link).
• Disability activists say no to euthanasia bill (Link).

When the right to die becomes a duty to die.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are currently being debated in England, Scotland, Ireland, Jersey and the Isle of Man. Each jurisdiction is debating a different proposal.

Sonia Sodha

Sonia Sodha wrote an excellent opinion column that was published in the Guardian on April 7, 2024. Sodha wonder who will step in to save the most at risk? and she states: Proponents of legalising assisted dying are right to stop and think of the possible unintended consequences. Sodha explains:

It’s rare to get a politician who openly admits they are torn on an issue, but in recent days there have been two striking examples. First, Wes Streeting, Labour’s shadow health secretary, admitted that though he voted to legalise assisted dying a few years ago, he feels conflicted. Then Nicola Sturgeon, former Scottish first minister, wrote a piece saying that, with new Scottish legislation on the table, the reservations she expected to subside are becoming stronger.

Sodha also supported euthanasia but has now changed her position. Sodha explains:

A decade ago, I would have supported assisted dying out of a respect for personal autonomy and a desire to alleviate suffering. Today, I understand these objectives are not standalone but need to be weighed against the impact on those for whom an abstract liberal notion like autonomy is highly simplistic, and the state-sanctioned wrongful deaths that seem to me impossible to avoid.

Sodha further explains why she now opposes euthanasia:

The first prompt for my reappraisal has been my evolving understanding of the complexity of relationships. We are not all autonomous islands floating in a sea of humanity; we are highly influenced by each other and by cultural norms. Writing about domestic abuse has opened my eyes to the extent that coercively controlling relationships drive people to do things because others want them to. Of course there will be women who get a terminal diagnosis, whose partners have been emotionally abusive to them for years – telling them their life isn’t worth living – who will come under intolerable pressure to opt for assisted dying. How can we ignore that around a third of female suicides are thought to be related to intimate partner abuse? Or that some men who violently kill their sick wives rely on defences such as “mercy killing” and “suicide pacts”, sometimes very effectively? Even the fact that men are much more likely than women to leave their partners after a terminal diagnosis feels salient to understanding the gendered implications.

Sodha explains how the risk of coercion is a wider issue:

The risk of coercion goes beyond intimate partners in a society riven with ageism and anti-disability prejudice; what happened to older people in care homes during Covid is just one example. More than a fifth of people over 65 have experienced physical, emotional, financial or sexual abuse. There are relatives who will find ways – perhaps quite subtly, even unintentionally – of hinting to people with a terminal diagnosis who need round-the-clock care that they should opt for assisted dying. How would that make you feel? Almost half of people who chose assisted death in Oregon in 2022 cited concern about being a burden.

Then there is the internal pressure that arises from some feeling that they ought to do it to save relatives difficulty and financial consequences: where the right to die becomes the duty to die. That message will be reinforced at a societal level; Times columnist Matthew Parris recently argued in a widely condemned column that assisted dying could help address the cost of an ageing population; that there are those willing to be honest about this should give serious pause for thought. Moreover, palliative care doctors talk about how the wish to die is not stable, and often abates in terminally ill patients in the wake of an initial diagnosis, and can be affected by depression, which is hard to diagnose.

Sodha then refers to the International evidence with legalised euthanasia.

The most cited example is Canada, where a limited form of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) was legalised in 2016 for people with “grievous and irremediable medical conditions” with assurances about its narrow scope. Today, that definition has been interpreted to include a person with severe sensitivities to chemicals unable to access appropriate housing from the state, and there have been reports of officials promoting assisted dying to people with disabilities applying for government assistance and medical professionals trying to coerce people into it. A parliamentary committee has recommended MAiD should be extended to some sick children and it is set to be expanded to people with chronic mental illness. In the Netherlands, euthanasia is an option for people who are autistic and lonely and is about to be extended to children of all ages. In Oregon, where the law has remained more stable, terminal conditions today include arthritis and anorexia.

Sodha comments on the House of Lords debate that assured people that safeguards can be maintained. Sodha writes:

Medical professionals are not trained in or necessarily any good at detecting coercive control; judges will have limited evidence to make their own call. In the family courts, judges can fail to detect coercive control even when confronted with detailed evidence about intra-familial relationships. Narcissistic abusers can be highly adept at fooling professionals. What level of outside influence is considered too much, how is it measured, and how sure must a judge be, given life and death is at stake, surely rendering the balance of probability evidentiary threshold usually applied in the family courts inappropriate?

Sadha criticized the House of Lords debate by writing:

In the House of Lords debate, there was a marked failure to engage with these detailed concerns. Some claimed there is no evidence of problems abroad, as if coercively influenced wrongful deaths would magically reveal themselves after the fact. One only need look at the fight to reveal the true number of hidden homicides of women by their abusers to understand the naivety in that and, in somewhere like Oregon, the system is simply not set up to catch wrongful deaths. With brutal utilitarian honesty, former supreme court president Lord Neuberger acknowledged there would be abuses, but argued the benefits for those acting autonomously would outweigh them.

Sodha concludes by challenging politicians to examine the complexity of the issue. She writes:

We live in a social media-driven world characterised by excessive moral certainty, in which powerful individual stories that invoke strong emotions can dominate the discourse to the detriment of the voiceless. There is a real risk that a law gets passed without any of these devastating concerns being addressed. Assisted dying is not a right-left issue, but it garners more support from MPs on the left, including Keir Starmer, and a Labour government might feel under pressure to introduce big reforms that don’t cost money given its self-imposed fiscal constraints. That is why voices like Streeting’s and Sturgeon’s are so important; we desperately need politicians willing to acknowledge that assisted dying is one of the most complex and fraught ethical questions they will ever be asked to confront.

More articles on this topic:

• Warning to Ireland. If euthanasia is legalized as a cure for suffering, then suffering people will be "cured" by euthanasia! (Link). 
• Autistic healthy 28-year-old Dutch woman scheduled to die by euthanasia (Link). 
• Netherlands 2023 euthanasia report. A 23% increase in euthanasia for psychological suffering (Link).

UK Labour Party leader is dead wrong about assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Kevin Yuill

Kevin Yuill who is an emeritus professor of history at the University of Sunderland and CEO of Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (HAASE) wrote an article, that was published in Spiked on March 14 challenging Keir Starmer, the leader of the UK Labour party who announced that he would introduce an assisted suicide bill, if elected in the next UK election. 

I just completed meetings with elected representatives in Scotland and the Isle of Man. While in Scotland, the Keir Starmer news came out.

Yuill's states in his article in the Spiked:

He made the pledge earlier this week, in response to Esther Rantzen, the veteran broadcaster who is also a vocal advocate for assisted suicide. Starmer told her: ‘I’m personally in favour of changing the law. I think we need to make time. We will make the commitment.’

Yuill writes that Starmer has flip flopped on issues in the past, but Starmer is known to support assisted suicide. Yuill wrote:

He has, after all, continuously supported legalising assisted suicide. As an MP in 2015, he voted in favour of it. And when he was director of public prosecutions, in 2010, he issued guidelines that strongly discouraged prosecutions against anyone who helped a terminally ill person end their life. Indeed, his position on assisted dying may be the only consistent one he has ever held.

Yuill then explains how Starmer's promised "safegaurds" are an illusion:

Starmer has promised that any change in the UK law must be accompanied by ‘safeguards with teeth to protect the vulnerable’ from abuse. But herein lies the fundamental problem with legalising assisted dying. In almost every country where it has been legalised, the safeguards that were initially put in place have been trampled on. Like a cancer, the so-called right to die inevitably spreads.

Yuill then explains how Canada's safeguards have been withdrawn.

Canada is perhaps the most grim example of this. In less than a decade, its Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) programme has expanded to a dystopian degree. When it was first introduced in 2016, euthanasia was only legal when a patient’s death was ‘reasonably foreseeable’. Now, just about anybody suffering from an illness or disability can access a state-sponsored death. In 2027, the law is set to expand further still to allow those suffering with mental illness to apply for MAID.

Yuill explains that expanding assisted suicide laws is a feature of legalization:

Expansion of the criteria is a feature, not a bug, of assisted-suicide laws. Once the right to die is enshrined in law, safeguards are almost immediately called into question by those who feel they are suffering unbearably, but do not qualify under the existing rules. There’s a grim logic to it. When death comes to be seen as the best treatment for suffering, then how can the state deny it to anyone who suffers?

Yuill provides specific examples of expansion of the laws from Canada and the Netherlands:

As a result, some truly disturbing cases have emerged from the places where assisted dying is legal. In Alberta, Canada, a 27-year-old autistic woman was approved for MAID earlier this year. Her father has gone to court to try to stop her from being euthanised. He has argued that, aside from her autism diagnosis, she is perfectly healthy. Despite this, two doctors signed off on her death. The case is still ongoing.

It’s a similar story in the Netherlands, where assisted suicide and euthanasia have been legal since 2002. Between 2012 and 2021, 39 people suffering only from autism and / or other intellectual disabilities have been euthanised. Nearly half of them were under 50.

One such case was an autistic man in his twenties. His record said that he was a victim of regular bullying, that he ‘had felt unhappy since childhood’ and that he ‘longed for social contacts but was unable to connect with others’. On this basis, and on his request, his doctor euthanised him.

Yuill ends the article by encouraging Starmer to flip flop on assisted suicide.

The essential problem with assisted suicide is that it turns death into a ‘solution’ to life’s problems. It does not alleviate people’s suffering. It merely encourages them to seek death, as an alternative to decent medical treatment or proper social support. Keir Starmer ought to think twice before setting the UK down this path. For once, his flip-flopping would be more than welcome.

Previous articles by Kevin Yuill on euthanasia and assisted suicide. (Link to the articles)

The UK economy has heightened euthanasia concerns for people with disabilities and the elderly

Baroness Jane Campbell stated in an article published in the Telegraph newspaper that: 

Baroness Jane Campbell

Hostility towards disabled and elderly in wake of recession means it would be a ‘dangerous time’ to consider changing law no assisted suicide. 

The threat to frail elderly and disabled people from relatives tempted to get rid of them under the guise of euthanasia has grown “dramatically” in the wake of the economic downturn, one of Britain’s most prominent disability campaigners has claimed.

An article written by John Bingham and published in the Telegraph states that Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, issued an impassioned plea in the House of Lords against moves to further relax Britain’s laws on assisted suicide. The article reported that:

The guidelines drawn up by the former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer four years ago signal that people who assist a loved one to take their own life out of compassion are unlikely to be prosecuted. 

Baroness Jay, the Labour peer, who tabled the debate on the prosecution guidelines, argued that the current law is “ambiguous”. 

Later this year peers are also due to debate a private member’s bill tabled by Lord Falconer, the Labour former Lord Chancellor, to legalise so-called “assisted dying” in Britain for the first time. 

She said the rules could be exploited by people who lie to police about a relative’s intentions after they have apparently taken their own life.

Court of Appeal in Britain upholds lower court ruling, protecting UK citizens from euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg, 

International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Court of Appeals in Britain released its decision today in the Nicklinson/Lamb euthanasia case by upholding the decision of the lower court by rejecting the argument that an exception to homicide can be created to allow euthanasia based on a defense of necessity. The Court of Appeal also upheld that only parliament can change laws prohibiting euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Mr Lamb was seeking a court declaration that any doctor who helped him to die would have a defence against a charge of murder. The defence is known as "necessity", meaning it was necessary for the doctor to act to stop his suffering.

There has been confusion concerning the Nicklinson/Lamb case which was asking the court to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. To legalize euthanasia, the court would have had to create an exception to the homicide (murder) Act in the UK.

A third plaintiff in the case, known only as Martin, appears to have won his intervention by being granted the right to have greater clarification in the prosecution guidelines with respect to assisted suicide.

Lord Judge

Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions stated that he would appeal the Martin decision to the Supreme Court.

Lord Judge, as Lord Chief Justice, said: 

"the law relating to assisting suicide cannot be changed by judicial decision". 

"whatever the personal views of any individual judge on these delicate and sensitive subjects - and I suspect that the personal views of individual judges would be as contradictory as those held by any other group of people - the constitutional imperative is that, however subtle and impressive the arguments to the contrary may be, we cannot effect the changes or disapply the present statutory provisions, not because we are abdicating our responsibility, but precisely because we are fulfilling our proper constitutional role".

Dr Andrew Fergusson of the Care Not Killing Alliance in the UK, a group that intervened in the case, stated:

The judgment comprehensively and completely dismissed these appeals, which sought to alter legislation covering murder. 

"All three judges strongly rejected the notion that 'necessity' should be a defence in euthanasia cases, saying this was not compatible with English Law. Further, the blanket prohibition on assisted suicide in the UK is not contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights."

"The judges, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson and Lord Justice Elias, recognised that changing the laws on murder and suicide are matters for Parliament alone. They acknowledged that these issues had been debated by Parliament frequently in recent years."

"And they confirmed the simple truth that the current law exists to protect the vulnerable and those without a voice: disabled people, terminally ill people and elderly people, who might otherwise feel pressured into ending their lives."

Dr Andrew Fergusson

Dr Fergusson continued: 

"Two of the three judges concluded that the DPP should issue some very minor clarification to the prosecution guidelines covering assisted suicide for 'class two cases' requiring the involvement of a health professional. We were persuaded by the dissenting opinion from the UK's most senior judge that change was unnecessary and unhelpful, but, importantly, this clarification does not change the current law."

"These latest court cases, along with previous cases and the numerous debates in Parliament confirm that there is a limit to choice in a democratic and tolerant society. The judges acknowledged these are three tragic cases but agreed with our view that it is not acceptable to expect the state to sanction and condone murder."

"I hope this latest decision will now draw a line once and for all under the legal debate and allow politicians, society as a whole, and health professionals to focus attention on how we care for the terminally ill, disabled and elderly."

Richard Hawkes

Richard Hawkes, chief executive of Scope, a charity for persons with disabilities stated:

"Why is it that when a able-bodied person wants to commit suicide we try to talk them out of it and offer them support, but when a disabled person wants to commit suicide we focus on how we can make that possible?"

The Court of Appeals decision in the UK is a good decision. 
It upheld the rule of law and it maintains the protections in law for every citizen in the UK, especially people who live with disabilities, chronic conditions, depression or mental illness.

Link to:
- Care Not Killing Alliance welcomes Court of Appeal rulings. 
- UK court rejects euthanasia cases, court gets it right.

CNK welcomes the Appeal Court rulings on the Nicklinson and Lamb cases but favours the dissenting opinion on 'Martin'

Media Release - July 30, 2013

Care Not Killing Alliance

Senior judges 'comprehensively and completely' reject challenge to murder law

Care Not Killing (CNK), the UK's leading anti-euthanasia campaign group, has welcomed today's decision by all three judges in the Appeal Court to comprehensively and completely reject the Nicklinson and Lamb cases.

However, it expressed concern about the 2-1 decision in the Martin case to seek further clarification of the DPP guidelines for so-called 'class two' cases relating to assisted suicide, requiring the involvement of a health professional.

Dr Andrew Fergusson

Dr Andrew Fergusson, a spokesman for CNK, said: 

"We welcome today's ruling by the Appeal Court on the Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lamb cases, in which CNK intervened. The judgment comprehensively and completely dismissed these appeals, which sought to alter legislation covering murder." 

"All three judges strongly rejected the notion that 'necessity' should be a defence in euthanasia cases, saying this was not compatible with English Law. Further, the blanket prohibition on assisted suicide in the UK is not contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights." 

"The judges, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson and Lord Justice Elias, recognised that changing the laws on murder and suicide are matters for Parliament alone. They acknowledged that these issues had been debated by Parliament frequently in recent years." 

"And they confirmed the simple truth that the current law exists to protect the vulnerable and those without a voice: disabled people, terminally ill people and elderly people, who might otherwise feel pressured into ending their lives."

Dr Fergusson continued: 

"Two of the three judges concluded that the DPP should issue some very minor clarification to the prosecution guidelines covering assisted suicide for 'class two cases' requiring the involvement of a health professional. We were persuaded by the dissenting opinion from the UK's most senior judge that change was unnecessary and unhelpful, but, importantly, this clarification does not change the current law. 

"These latest court cases, along with previous cases and the numerous debates in Parliament confirm that there is a limit to choice in a democratic and tolerant society. The judges acknowledged these are three tragic cases but agreed with our view that it is not acceptable to expect the state to sanction and condone murder. 

"I hope this latest decision will now draw a line once and for all under the legal debate and allow politicians, society as a whole, and health professionals to focus attention on how we care for the terminally ill, disabled and elderly."