Letter to Ben Coleman MP re Assisted Dying Bill Second Reading

Image ICN/JS

Dear Mr Coleman,

Re Assisted Suicide Bill Second Reading Friday 29th November 2024

This is one of the most disturbing pieces of proposed legislation ever to come before Parliament and openly into the public domain:

Bill to allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life; and for connected purposes.

Please can you tell me and a doctor friend of mine, what does: "and for connected purposes" mean?

As my newly elected MP I am writing to ask you to vote against this Bill on Friday because the full implications of this 'Pandora's box' cannot be adequately explored in the time MPs have been given to read and digest the fine print of the Bill before its second reading, and the implications for everyone could not be more serious.

Under the previous government we have seen increasingly radical legislation being pushed through parliament over the last four years attacking the most fundamental Human Rights, but this Labour proposed Bill is a clear continuation of those policies, representing an over-riding globalist agenda which drives all government policy in Western countries taking away the power of individual National parliaments. Hence, we see so called 'Assisted Dying' becoming normalised in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, ten states in USA, Austria, Spain and Switzerland providing facilities for the practise both to the terminally ill and as a 'choice' for people who may be seen as, or made to feel that they are, a burden on society. I can cite many horrific examples. In the USA the term 'Assisted Suicide' is used, perhaps in an attempt to absolve the State of blame.

But the idea that to encourage another human being to commit suicide can in any circumstances be acceptable, either morally or legally, is abhorrent to most people, however it is presented, or misrepresented, as being about giving the sick, both the physically and mentally ill, choice and compassion.

To most of us the instinct to preserve life at all costs is not something open to question. To help someone to kill themselves is simply murder, whether that is either allowed or required by law. To make this legal is to open the way for all kinds of practises far beyond what may have been intended under the Bill especially given the current financial state of the NHS and social care.

Doctors (and health practitioners) with a genuine concern for other human beings under their care who take their Hippocratic Oath seriously as a collective and personal moral imperative are in danger of being legally forced to go against every fundamental principal of their profession, in effect trivialising murder as just another prescription choice.

It was the Labour Party which brought the NHS into existence after the traumas the British people had suffered during and in the aftermath of WW2 and with it a new era of genuine compassion and dignity for the sick of all generations, not just those who are considered to be economically productive. This follows from the provisions of the Human Rights Act and the fundamental Right to Life and was I believe the greatest achievement of Labour. Is the present 'Labour' Government going to unleash a piece of legislation which will undoubtedly be the unravelling of all that has been achieved over the years since 5th July 1948?

When people entered hospital, which is only ever out of necessity and is a time of heightened anxiety and fear, they knew that they were entering a place where everything would be done to save their life, and that the doctors and staff had no other obligations. Kim Leadbetter's Bill represents a total reversal of that intrinsic relationship of trust. If it is allowed to go through, instead, patients will be entering a place where, for the first time in the UK, the Doctor will be there to both cure and kill, according to what the circumstances of that patient may be, or may be perceived to be. And who will decide this?

The nearest doctors have ever come to participating in ending the life of a British citizen was when they were required by Law to be present at the execution of prisoners in State prisons to ensure that the person being killed was dead and the executioners role was 'successful' in satisfying the requirements of the Legal process. Thank God this practise ended in 1964 although Doctors were not expected to participate in the actual process of killing itself.

Now this Bill seeks to impose this dual role on doctors so what will be the difference between the role of the doctor and that of executioner? Contrary to public perception, assisted dying is not always a painless and trauma free experience for those being terminated. Reports state that many wish to stop the process once they realise what they are doing, a decision may be the result of depression or desperation, and things can and do go horribly wrong, as with executions.

What does this do to doctors themselves? This is totally at odds with the Hippocratic Oath as it overturns the fundamental principles of Law and Medicine and will I believe discourage many idealistic young people from wishing to become doctors.

Just knowing that doctors treating them will have a new legal requirement which may not be in the interests of extending the life of the patient will have a devastating psychological affect on the terminally ill, especially those who are on bad terms with their families or have no next of kin. Over 400,000 elderly people are subject to domestic abuse each year in the UK alone. Professor Julien Hughes has warned that many people with disabilities may be open to the subconscious suggestion by relatives or society at large, that they have some obligation to ask to be killed for the wider benefit of society. In Oregon USA a staggering 47% of people accept 'assisted suicide' because they feel a burden on friends and family. Only a sick society could encourage this. Professor Hughes said: "The thought we can detect or get rid of coercion is nonsense".

Most people do not engage with Parliamentary debate or worry about changes in the Law, until those changes are applied to them personally. At that point they have no choice, dignity or control.

I urge you to vote against it for all these reasons and many more which I cannot list here.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Nicholas Lane

Chelsea Constituent SW10 0JZ