Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Here's Rachel Maskell in her local paper, weighing up all sides, so she says.

https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/247538 ... askell-mp/

She says she was a "clinician". She was a physiotherapist, but has strong views on "doctors" who will apparently cart off anyone who says they're worried about being a burden and haplessly tell people they're terminally ill when they aren't. If that sounds a bit like a pro-life abortion argument to you, then you might not be surprised that Maskell voted against extending abortion rights to Northern Ireland. The evidence is that she has a principled position on this issue, and she's entitled to it, but don't pull the old "I'm weighing it all up carefully".

As I said before, "don't want to be a burden" is something almost anyone who cares about their family might say. It doesn't mean, "kill me now", and nobody is suggesting that it should.

Also this.

If this were not enough, the Bill actually states that a doctor could suggest a patient considers an assisted death. This crosses a Rubicon in medicine. We know the implicit trust someone has in a doctor. They are required to ‘do no harm’, however this Bill changes their role and we should all be deeply concerned.

I don't know about you, but putting someone out of unimaginable pain doesn't sound to me like it's doing harm. Again, I think she's bringing a particular pro-life view to the table here. Nor is it clear why the doctor suggesting assisted death is inconsistent with trust in your doctor. I think the real point she's concerned with is that the doctor might suggest something she (not the patient) doesn't like.

Note also the nonsense that it's "rushed". Are her views here "rushed" then?

Saying the bill could involve your GP “suggesting” an assisted death is somewhat disingenuous.

The most a doctor will do is inform any relevant patient that meets the defined criteria that the option of assisted death is available to them as a choice. The entire point of the legislation. Choice.

Yeah, I don't get that point at all. "Doctor in giving you options available under the law" shock! She doesn't want that option to exist, and if she does, she doesn't want you to be aware of it.

At this point, I think lots of opponents are just chucking the kitchen sink at it. I've seem some people saying that the regular NHS can't do this, it has to be some separate silo. Really? Like they wouldn't be characterizing this as some sort of sinister outside killing squad, and moaning that it should be the good old GP or hospital doctor you've been seeing for years?

Telling people what their options are is literally the core of NHS care and something I work on every day. And the key is that it isn’t just choice - it’s *informed* choice. That involves giving people information, discussing options with them and (if they choose) friends and/or relatives, allowing time to ask questions and reflect, and making use of decision aids and other such tools specifically designed for patient use.

There are a ton of materials for conditions as trivial (in life terms) as glue ear that repeatedly reinforce information, informed choice, and the right to change your mind - I know because I created some of them. And GPs are instructed to make full use of these when discussing what options are available. To suggest that assisted dying wouldn’t have such a scenario and probably have an embarrassment of such tools, and that these tools would be belt and braces about repeatedly emphasising choice is outright nonsense and disingenuous in the extreme.

I've long suspected that one of the worst things about political debate in the UK is the way that people can be fed a few options from a quite narrow spectrum and regard it as a free choice, but introduce one from outside that range and it's suddenly unreasonable pressure to pick the new thing. I wonder if it's based on a gut feeling that the outside option is actually a genuine alternative, is quite attractive, but to choose it would mean having to admit that you were taken in by the others*.

Apologies for dragging this up again, but many years ago in Belgium, I saw on sale in WH Schmeets little booklets, reasonably priced, plain Flemish, French and English editions available, covering how the incoming Maastricht treaty would affect people - as individuals, employers, tourists, students and so on. And my dad saying that you'd never get that in Britain, because it would either be delivered in incredibly dense legalese, or would be furiously contested by all sides. Some years later the Express tried to wind up its readers about "EU propaganda" in classrooms, which turned out to be info packs about how the EU is run and what it does. Apparently anything other than "takes your parents' hard-earned money and blows it on big dinners in Brussels" is dangerous Federalist lies.

During the Irish abortion debate, there were people saying that legalising it would lead to young women being led at gunpoint into repurposed Magdalene laundries for a date with the abortionist, regardless of their wishes (I'm exaggerating, but not by much). Point out that if it remains illegal, you're still going to have back street Vera Drakes doing the dirty business, that people will be at greater risk, and that they will have no legal protection, you got replies of "Well, if that's what's needed to deter people, so be it", like a US prohibitionist spiking moonshine with arsenic. A few horrible deaths pour encourager les autres.

That's when it becomes clear that for these people, what they fear is them (or their people) losing control, rather than others gaining it.

*And yes, I voted for Corbyn as leader. Once. Then regretted it.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:15 pm She says she was a "clinician". She was a physiotherapist, but has strong views on "doctors"…

From long experience of healthcare advice developed by doctors, surgeons, nurses, and patient reps going off to public consultation, and seeing the comments that come back, I can tell you some of the most self-interested, chip-on-shoulder, “why haven’t you recommended [my field of expertise] above all else?” comments come in from Doctor-adjacent professions such as physiotherapy - and in particular private practice.

From the tone of her comments, it sounds like Maskell would fit that mould perfectly.

What is it with The Guardian and assisted dying? Health Committee chair Layla Moran (who voted for the Leadbetter bill) makes some fairly general remarks about the need to be careful and it's the lead UK story.

Government would be ‘foolish’ to ignore palliative care warnings over assisted dying
Health committee chair Layla Moran says doctors’ concerns about impact on vulnerable patients must be heeded

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ayla-moran

This sort of coverage is just going to lead to a load of MPs bottling it- though that's exactly what Moran, to her credit, says they shouldn't do.

Has the editor's husband contracted terminal stupidity, so it is all too close to home?

Hopefully it will mean we won't end up with somethinng like MAID in Canada.

I'm getting seriously fed up with this stuff. If I was Kim Leadbetter, I think I'd do well to be in the same room as people like this ever again.

"Learned overnight" as if some stroke was pulled by Kim. The idea that only a High Court judge is qualified to make decisions like this, as part of a panel, is nonsense. And even High Court judges don't spring up from nothing- there's an appointments process. The senior lawyer on the panel will have gone through the same panel. There will be a senior doctor too- you don't become one of those without serious process. Nor a senior social worker. The fact there's a commissioner overseeing that is not some sort of outrage. How does she suggest people get allocated?

Elsewhere she said all this is a distraction from fixing the NHS. Has she any idea about pain and medicine?

https://bsky.app/profile/antoniabance.b ... 4qwnxzi22q

Stuff like this is barely considered.

It isn’t “barely considered” at all. There is already specific provision within the bill to address the concerns around coercion, and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it will be given even further detailed consideration - this is what happens at the committee stage of any bill.

Does nobody realise that coercion on ill people nearing their lives’ end already exists ( and is of course, also already illegal)? It’s very unlikely that it would suddenly spike if the bill passes into law.

Indeed. I fail to see how people already being illegally pressured into an early grave by ghoulish relatives is going to get worse by there being a safeguard-heavy legal route. If anything, it will likely stop some of these cases if their abusers are stupid enough to try and pressure them into applying.

Indeed, it is bollocks.

I went through relentless waves of this in my family in 2000 to 2005 with cancer, life support after bike wrecks, AIDS, and everything else that life (and death) could throw at us at the time. Upshot; everyone died but there were no lingering questions.

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2025 9:56 pm Indeed. I fail to see how people already being illegally pressured into an early grave by ghoulish relatives is going to get worse by there being a safeguard-heavy legal route. If anything, it will likely stop some of these cases if their abusers are stupid enough to try and pressure them into applying.

Except it won't the more hurdles they're to overcome will make people think twice. Having no safeguards is just asking for trouble.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2025 11:26 pm

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2025 9:56 pm Indeed. I fail to see how people already being illegally pressured into an early grave by ghoulish relatives is going to get worse by there being a safeguard-heavy legal route. If anything, it will likely stop some of these cases if their abusers are stupid enough to try and pressure them into applying.

Except it won't the more hurdles they're to overcome will make people think twice. Having no safeguards is just asking for trouble.

I don’t understand what you’re saying here. There are going to be safeguards and hurdles, so people will think twice. And abusers who were going to break the law behind closed doors will still break the law anyway. So how is this ‘asking for trouble’? It would seem to be the absolute opposite - adding a safe, legal option* that will also inevitably catch some of these abusers where currently there is none for anyone.

*And let’s remind ourselves the overwhelming number of people who would use such a service are not coerced and are making their own reasoned, informed choice. Focusing on a rare worst case scenario to define the care that everyone gets is akin to banning chemotherapy or antibiotics because a few people have side effects.

Dismissing any potential downsides as worst case scenarios is the height of arrogance. The fact is they do happen and proponents are ignoring them or downplaying them.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2025 11:53 am Dismissing any potential downsides as worst case scenarios is the height of arrogance. The fact is they do happen and proponents are ignoring them or downplaying them.

That doesn’t explain what you meant at all. And the height of arrogance is denying people dignity at the end of their life because you’re fretting about a scenario that becomes less likely if you offer legal, regulated euthanasia options.

Once again, I remind you that your position is not one of moral superiority but of selfishness. You are condemning many terminally ill people of sound mind to long, drawn-out and painful deaths, putting their friends and loved ones through a horrible experience, simply so you don’t have to even contemplate edge case scenarios that likely will happen anyway if abusers are that unscrupulous.

Despite what's implied, there's considerable support from disabled people for assisted dying. Almost like they know more about it than Danny Kruger.

As I said before, those opposed should support prosecution for relatives/friends who take patients to Dignitas. Otherwise, I'll infer they're huge cowards. Say what you like about your central casting nasty Roman Catholic churchman, they walk the unpleasant talk. This "I'm not against it but there's a panel instead of a high court judge" folk are something else