How legalisation could lead to coercion and societal pressure to opt-in to “assisted dying”
On 29 November, the “assisted dying” bill will have its second reading in the UK House of Commons. The bill aims to permit euthanasia.
In the following, Clare Wills Harrison explores how state-approved euthanasia could lead to the coercion of patients to agree to be killed by their doctor and how those who are “offered” euthanasia will be expanded to include others and not limited to those as stated at the bill’s inception.
It is the first in a two-part series. We will publish the second part tomorrow.
When Choice Becomes Coercion: The Perils of Legalised Euthanasia (Part 1)
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (note the polite way of saying euthanasia here) is a proposed piece of legislation for the UK that aims to allow terminally ill adults to request medical assistance to end their lives. The bill was introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater as a Private Members’ Bill and was presented to Parliament on Wednesday 16 October through the ballot procedure. The next stage for this Bill is its second reading, which is scheduled to take place on Friday 29 November.
The Bill seeks to implement legislation to permit those with six months or less to live “to seek assistance in ending their lives,” “subject to strict safeguards and protections.” Let’s re-word that so we all understand what it means. The Bill would permit people to be euthanised. Plain and simple. “Legalised assisted dying,” or “legal assistance to end life,” are just pretty ways of saying state-approved euthanasia. Fact.
The Bill has rightly sparked significant debate, with opinions divided on the ethical and moral implications of euthanasia. The questions currently on my mind are coercion and expansion, mainly because I have concerns that euthanasia could end up being driven by monetary savings and societal pressures, rather than being about “caring.” Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to say that these are the reasons why this Bill is going through the parliamentary process now. It would be odd and extremely dystopian to argue that this Bill is on the table for nefarious reasons only, and I am NOT suggesting that MPs are rubbing their hands together about the “savings” that euthanasia may bring. What I am saying is that I have a fear that monetary savings, societal pressures, health and care pressures, and an ageing population and flatlining birth rate, could – at some point in the future – lead to an expansion of euthanasia in the UK. There could even be subtle coercion of people to enter the process. And I say this because I have real fears about the slippery slope that euthanasia puts us on, particularly when judged against the events of the last five years.
During the last decade we have witnessed behavioural psychology being wielded as a tool against the British public for various things, and this was very much evident during 2020. Nudging is nothing other than disgusting state-led propaganda designed to change behaviours to achieve desired outcomes. It’s dangerous and dystopian and for more on this topic see my article HERE. Given the wide deployment of behavioural psychology over the last decade, I am really apprehensive about the potential for nudging techniques to influence decisions around euthanasia. Imagine a scenario where someone feeling depressed is subtly encouraged to consider themselves a burden on the system, or where those past their working age are prompted to explore “assisted dying” as a viable option. With insufficient care spaces and support, (see below), euthanasia could start to be framed as a solution to these things.
Initially presented as a “compassionate choice,” the conversation could shift to emphasise societal benefits – how euthanasia can relieve pressures on palliative care services and the healthcare system overall. As such a narrative unfolds, we could see it normalised, particularly if education on the “benefits” of euthanasia starts early in schools. What if, in the future, euthanasia becomes “opt-out” – the same as opting out of organ donation? Then, imagine being told that if you choose to opt-out, your medical records are flagged and you may face penalties regarding healthcare access, especially as you age. Such scenarios would lead society to accept euthanasia as a standard option, marginalising those who resist it. Those who decline to consider euthanasia might be labelled selfish or irresponsible, facing social ostracism and public shaming. What does this remind you of in the context of the last five years?
Euthanasia is, of course, not a solution to economic, social and care challenges that a functioning society governed by a benevolent state would ever contemplate. Unfortunately, I believe we have neither. I lack faith in most of my peers being functioning members of society possessing relevant information on most things, and as a result of this do not believe they will be able to critically analyse the complex subject of euthanasia, nor uphold the values and principles necessary to prevent the expansion of euthanasia beyond its intended scope. I look back at the last five years and am confronted with the fact that many of my peers supported harsh measures during the “pandemic,” such as isolating the elderly to death, whilst care staff mingled freely at home and in supermarkets – but thought this was SANE AND SCIENTIFIC. I know my peers’ support of such ridiculous measures came about as a result of them being socially engineered into feeling perpetually threatened – so they were acting from a sense of self-preservation – but I am afraid that I have never forgiven them for their repugnant behaviour and I have learned my lesson from the same given some then even went as far as to support the unvaccinated being excluded from healthcare and recreational activities.
So, forgive me for feeling that this sort of society could quite easily turn its gaze towards marginalising those reluctant to consider euthanasia when nudged to by the state and its media arm.
I also do not trust the state itself – I have ZERO faith in that institution and regard it as completely captured and corrupt. It repeatedly proved itself untrustworthy through its manipulated information during “covid” where deaths of people with underlying health conditions who “tested positive” were classified as “covid” deaths and presented to the public via fear messaging to lead them into taking the “hallowed jab.” Also, don’t forget the initial messaging around the injection as being only for the elderly – Matt Hancock below lying in Parliament about this in November 2020 – the injections were of course expanded to include children and even babies.
We also now have never-ending support of war by the UK state, the human cost of that, and all the crimes that go with it – read here the raft of international laws being broken by the same – as well as the financial cost to the UK public at large. Given these things, I hope you will therefore allow my scepticism about the state’s ability to engage in truthful and meaningful discussions about the “need” for something as complex as euthanasia. I sadly have zero belief left in me that the state cares about people beyond what it can get out of them by way of revenue, and I will never make the mistake of thinking the state tells the truth ever again.
So, I find myself in the position of being deeply concerned that both the state and society at large do not care about anything beyond personal self-preservation at any cost. And as a result of this, I am deeply worried that we will never get an honest debate about the reasons euthanasia is being considered as an option for addressing the raft of chronic and debilitating illnesses we now have in society – not just in the elderly, but also among younger populations too. Such a debate is crucial, as it could diminish the demand for euthanasia laws and instead foster a movement to address the systemic issues contributing to the current health crises we see – in simpler terms, people might be less inclined to contemplate ending their own lives and more motivated to challenge the harmful substances and practices imposed upon them if we can have a truthful discussion about why a lot of illness might be occurring.
Forecasts indicate about 130,000 more people will need palliative care by 2048. There are likely many reasons palliative care needs are set to rise, but at the heart of these reasons surely lies the harm caused by pharmaceutical products, very bad food and environmental toxins. What is being done to address these issues, to try and help people become healthier? Nothing. Experimental drugs are given a quick pass into the arms and mouths of people. Ultra-processed food along with junk takeaways have become the norm for many. And, environmental toxins continue to be deployed on a worldwide scale, with Glyphosate, a widely used herbicide, the subject of numerous lawsuits claiming it causes cancer. Then there are neonicotinoids, a class of insecticides, linked to the decline of bee populations. Once in the soil, neonicotinoids remain active for years, with rain/ irrigation water carrying them long distances to contaminate new soil, plant life and water supplies, with devastating effects. And let’s not even get started on how big industry has poisoned people environmentally – one only has to look at the case against DuPont and others about the harmful effects of perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”), a chemical used in the production of Teflon that contaminated the water supply in West Virginia. PFOA’s have, in fact, contaminated the planet and all of us have PFOA’s and other PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in our bodies due to widespread environmental contamination. These “forever chemicals” never break down and accumulate in the environment and human tissue over time. Studies have found PFAS in the blood of a large portion of the population, including in drinking water supplies. Forever chemicals have been linked to various health issues, including cancer, thyroid disease and reproductive problems. Even the bl**dy BBC admit this.
In addition to the above factors compromising health, there is also the considerable stress that people are living under due to the fear generated by the constant existential threat messages put out by the media and the state. These messages range from threats of world-ending “climate change,” unseen “viruses” that can, apparently, kill half the planet at any time, the whole world being invaded by Putin, and latterly the existential threat of nuclear annihilation. It is never-ending. What is being done to stop this propaganda-style fear-mongering? Nothing. A lot of the messaging is, in fact, supported by the UK government through its behavioural science team and profit-making companies like the nudge unit, who use fear as a tactic to change behaviours. Stress is one big fat assistor in killing – and living in perpetual fear causes stress.
So, we have an unhealthy population. And it’s only getting worse. And we have to realise that unhealthy populations are two things – unproductive and expensive.
Let’s consider our unwell and ageing population and the “cost” of the same to the state and its agents. The number of new disability benefit awards made to under-40s has grown by 150% between 2019 and 2024 in England and Wales. From the linked article:
Eduin Latimer, a Research Economist at IFS and an author of the report, said: ‘The recent rise in health-related benefit claims is creating a fiscal headache for the government, and of course is a bad sign about population health. Two simple candidate explanations – that this is just driven by the pandemic or the cost-of-living crisis – are hard to square with the lack of similar trends elsewhere. It seems likely that these shocks have played a role, but it may be that they have an outsized effect in the UK – perhaps because of difficulties in accessing NHS treatments, or the relatively low level of basic unemployment support in the UK. The crucial point is that it is not yet known what factors are driving this increase. Figuring out what is behind the recent rise must surely be a top priority for the government if it is going to be able to respond appropriately.
Further research reveals that total annual spending on working-age health-related benefits has increased from £28 billion to £43 billion in the last 10 years and that “this rise is forecast to accelerate over the next six years, with total spending increasing by 48% (or £20 billion) to £63 billion between 2022-23 and 2028-29.”
The UK is also facing significant challenges due to its ageing population and low birth rate. “Between 2015 and 2020, over a period when the general population is expected to rise 3%, the numbers aged over 65 are expected to increase by 12% (1.1 million); the numbers aged over 85 by 18% (300,000); and the number of centenarians by 40% (7,000).”
The NHS and care sector is therefore under immense pressure to provide assistance for an increasing number of elderly people due to higher demand for hospital admissions and social care services. Additionally, with fewer people in the workforce and more people retiring, there’s a growing dependency ratio because fewer working-age people cannot support a larger elderly population. This strains public finances AND pensions.
The cost of the UK state pension is expected to rise significantly due to the ageing population – currently the state pension costs over £100 billion a year and has increased threefold since 2000 – and by 2040, it is projected that there will be more than 17 million people aged 65 and over, which will further increase these costs. In fact, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has suggested that delaying the increase in the state pension age by 7 years (we will all get our state pension when we are dead folks!), could cost over £60 billion.
This clearly highlights the financial pressure from an ageing population. Add this to a chronically ill population, with not enough younger people born to either work or look after an older and sick generation, and you simply have a looming fiscal and social disaster.
Legalising euthanasia must be considered in the context of all of the above and opens up a need for a profound ethical debate about dignity, choice and the roles of healthcare and the state, but additionally a need for an honest discussion about what is making people so sick. I think society is ill-equipped to have such a debate because a large proportion of it is simply ignorant about what factors may be playing a part in making people so unwell. I also believe the state is highly dysfunctional – pathologically so – and will never address these things, nor address the myriads of moral, legal, ethical and practical issues surrounding euthanasia. I also now lack trust in doctors to discuss this topic meaningfully with anyone, given the lack of informed consent demonstrated during the widespread administration of the mRNA injections.
But let me be clear. I am not opposed to people choosing to end their own lives if they wish. I believe in personal autonomy and in no way feel entitled to dictate how others should manage their bodies, even if I disagree with their choices. What I vehemently oppose is state involvement in these decisions – whether through legislation or other means. If someone decides to end their life, that is their prerogative. They do not require state approval or intervention.
As for the argument that very ill people might need assistance to end their lives, I question why one would wait until they are unable to act independently. So, this is not a valid argument for legalising euthanasia in my humble opinion. All that needs to happen for such cases is encouraging those contemplating this path to make arrangements for themselves whilst they are still capable, rather than seeking the state to intervene on their behalf by way of “law.”
I have witnessed the law being weaponised against people over my 25 years in the legal profession and in the past five years, the situation has only worsened. I am deeply concerned about the potential for euthanasia laws to become part of this troubling trend. Given this, let’s take a moment to pause and then ensure we raise our voices to demand that the underlying issues contributing to the growing prevalence of chronic illness are addressed, rather than opting for an easy solution that allows the state and big corporations to evade responsibility over the same.
In part 2 I will highlight the expansion of euthanasia in Canada and the horrific way this has played out.
About the Author
Conscientious Currency is a pseudonym for Clare Wills Harrison, a former UK succession lawyer with 25 years of experience. She publishes articles on a Substack page primarily focussing on the armoury of non-compliance measures and other areas of taxation. You can subscribe to and follow her Substack HERE.
