The video features a discussion on Kim Leadbeater's bill on assisted dying, supported by Liberal Democrat MP Christine Jardine. The bill's details include requirements for a patient to have a clear and settled wish to end their life voluntarily, confirmed by two medical practitioners, and safeguards against coercion. Questions are raised about the adequacy of these safeguards and whether doctors are equipped to detect coercion.

Despite concerns about the doctors' training in coercive control and the bill's strictness of safeguards, Jardine emphasizes that the bill has been informed by experiences from other countries and ensures rigorous examinations and psychiatric involvement. The bill also provides that, if necessary, a proxy can sign for the patient, with a High Court Judge examining these cases.

Main takeaways from the video:

Please remember to turn on the CC button to view the subtitles.

Key Vocabularies and Common Phrases:

1. coerced [koʊˈɜrst] - (verb) - To compel by force or intimidation to do something against one's will. - Synonyms: (compelled, forced, intimidated)

The patient has to have a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life and has made the decision that they wish to end their own life voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it.

2. endorsement [ɪnˈdɔːrsmənt] - (noun) - An act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something. - Synonyms: (support, approval, backing)

Well, one of those who backs Kim Leadbeater's bill is the Liberal Democrat MP for Edinburgh West, Christine Jardine, whose name is printed at the end of the bill as a supporter.

3. safeguards [ˈseɪfˌɡɑːrdz] - (noun) - Measures taken to protect someone or something or to prevent something undesirable. - Synonyms: (protections, precautions, defenses)

Hang on, hang on. I thought this bill had the strictest safeguards in the world.

4. terminal diagnosis [ˈtɜːr.mə.nəl ˌdaɪ.əɡˈnoʊ.sɪs] - (noun) - A medical determination that a disease is leading to the end of life, typically within a short time period. - Synonyms: (end-stage diagnosis, final diagnosis, incurable condition)

...because they do have to have a terminal diagnosis with an expectation of perhaps six months at the most.

5. proponent [prəˈpoʊnənt] - (noun) - A person who advocates or supports a particular idea or cause. - Synonyms: (advocate, supporter, promoter)

The impetus for this change in the law is coming from people who are finding themselves coming from.

6. proxy [ˈprɑːk.si] - (noun) - A person authorized to act on behalf of another. - Synonyms: (representative, substitute, agent)

So you can declare to a proxy.

7. emotive [ɪˈmoʊtɪv] - (adjective) - Arousing intense feeling. - Synonyms: (emotional, stirring, provocative)

This is a huge emotive, emotional and moral issue that we're addressing.

8. impetus [ˈɪmpɪtəs] - (noun) - The force or energy with which a body moves; a driving force. - Synonyms: (stimulus, drive, motivation)

The impetus for this change in the law is coming from people who are finding themselves coming from.

9. scrutiny [ˈskruː.tɪ.ni] - (noun) - Critical observation or examination. - Synonyms: (examination, analysis, inspection)

These are all the things which, if it passes its second reading, we will go through in absolute depth in the scrutiny and the MPs will have time in the committee to check all of the wording.

10. vulnerable [ˈvʌlnərəbl] - (adjective) - Susceptible to physical or emotional harm. - Synonyms: (defenseless, exposed, at risk)

A patient with a terminal illness with apparently less than six months to live, is in a very, very vulnerable position.

MP is asked 4 times how a doctor would know if someone had been pressured into assisted dying

Well, one of those who backs Kim Leadbeater's bill is the Liberal Democrat MP for Edinburgh West, Christine Jardine, whose name is printed at the end of the bill as a supporter. And by the way, in a future program, we'll be speaking in detail to a critic of this bill. Thank you very much for being with us.

I'd like to go through some of the fine detail published in the bill and quote from it and then ask questions, if that's okay. So the first quote is this. The patient has to have a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life and has made the decision that they wish to end their own life voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it. And two doctors or registered medical practitioners have to be clear that the person hasn't been pressured or coerced.

How would anyone know if someone had been coerced? I think we're talking here about people who are in a heartbreaking situation and the doctors who've been dealing with them, who've possibly gone through the treatment, through the diagnosis, because they do have to have a terminal diagnosis with an expectation of perhaps six months at the most. They will know that person and they have the medical knowledge and they are, if you like, trained to deal with people and to read, you know, if they are being blunt, open with them and judge those.

But no, forgive me. Forgive me. The question is, how would anyone know if someone was being coerced? That is something that they would. They would. Hopefully there would be questions. They would examine the person. And I think what, hopefully one. Well, one would. They would do it. But I think one of the things medical practitioners, forgive me, doctors are not trained in coercive control, are they? No. I appreciate that. Would they know if someone had been coerced?

What is happening in this is that the impetus for this bill, the impetus for this change in the law is coming from people who are finding themselves coming from. But the reason that I'm saying this is the impetus is coming from people in that position. So people in that answer to a different question. I come back to my question. How would anyone know if the patient had been coerced?

If you are with someone who, as we have all been, who is facing the end of life and who wants to have the choice to end their life, there is a sincerity about what they say. It's a very emotional conversation. And there is something about the way that they approach it. And that's not something that you can say, something that you can go through. I Believe if you're being coerced. And I think.

I think that people, the doctors, the medics, extraordinary. If that's your criteria. No, that's not my criteria. They say it in a sincere enough way. No, no, no, that's not my criteria. What I'm saying is the medics, the professionals who deal with people every day, they will be trained in how to do this. They're not trained in coercive control. I spoke to a gp. They told us that there is no current guidance or training in place.

Current. But when the law, if the law is changed, that is when there will be safeguards put in place. Hang on, hang on. I thought this bill had the strictest safeguards in the world. It does. Now you're telling me that there will be for the safeguards? No, no, sorry, Victoria. What I'm saying is the safeguards are in the bill and they will not.

There's no mention of training, medical practitioners and medical practitioners who are dealing with people. And there have to be. The medical practitioner will be a very strict examination. It won't be a case of sitting down with someone for 10 minutes. It will be a very serious in depth discussions. There will be psychiatrists involved. If that addresses your point about coercive control, psychiatrists can be involved.

There will be exam. The medical practitioners who, remember, sign an oath first, do no harm. Absolutely. They will take this very, very seriously and ensure that every possibility is covered. The patient has to sign two forms declaring that they wish to have help in dying. However, if, as the patient, you can't sign your own form, someone else can do it for you. So you can declare to a proxy. If you can't sign your own name, perhaps you can't read or there's a physical impairment. Are you comfortable with that?

That will be examined by the doctors, then it has to go to High Court Judge. So all of this will be tested. I wouldn't have put my name to it if I wasn't absolutely convinced that these are the strongest safeguards in the world. They will be tested absolutely. And they will be incredibly tight. Because this is for all of us. This is not just a legal question. This is a huge emotive, emotional and moral issue that we're addressing.

The bill says that the proxy who signs your name can be someone who's known the patient personally for two years or a person who is of good standing in the community. Good standing in the community? Like who? Well, that would be someone presumably like their gp. That would be someone who was respected, who was perhaps medically trained. So they have to have a job and have medical qualification.

It would have to be someone who had good standing in the community. Is someone in this circumstance who would have the reputation is not the word. I mean, but who would have the standing in the community, who would have the knowledge of the person, the medical training. It couldn't just be someone who didn't know them, it would have to be someone who knew them. But you've mentioned medical training.

Because it doesn't mention that in the bill. It just says a person of good standing in the community. These are all the things which, if it passes its second reading, we will go through in absolute depth in the scrutiny and the MPs will have time in the committee to check all of the wording. Again, I'm quoting. Nothing prevents a registered medical practitioner exercising their professional judgment to decide if and when it is appropriate to discuss the matter with a patient.

So a doctor can raise the subject with. A patient can suggest the assisted dying route. Are you comfortable with that? No, not suggest. They could ask if they felt that the patient wanted to do it, so they raised the subject. First of all, I think what we have to remember in this. Are you comfortable with that?

I am comfortable with what is in the bill, yes. Otherwise I wouldn't have put my name to it. I wouldn't be. Let me put something in illness. A patient with a terminal illness with apparently less than six months to live, is in a very, very vulnerable position. A doctor is respected, revered. A doctor raises assisted dying in a conversation. The patient might listen very, very hard to them all.

I can tell you I am comfortable that this is based on the strictest possible safeguards and there are situations we've been talking. This is not something Nick mentioned. The spirits done with. This is not something that Kim has come up with overnight or that any of us have become involved in overnight. But he spent years listening to people who've been involved in other countries, like Australia.

We had one woman who came and spoke to us a couple of weeks ago, whose brother had gone through the assisted dying process in Australia, which is the strictest. And he went through all of this and it's what we've looked at. And at the end of the day, he decided that the time had come when he wanted to exercise the right that he had gained. We're almost out of time to see Jordy to take his own life and to have an assisted death.

And I think what we have to remember in all of this, I mean, it is taking your own life, isn't it? It is, but it is having the choice now, Victoria, I don't know what I would do in that circumstance. I'm asking you that final question. If a private. It's a private member's bill, not a government bill. MPs will have three weeks to read and absorb the detail of this before they will get five hours to debate this at second reading. I mean, this is a potentially huge societal change. Is this honestly enough time for parliamentarians?

I would have preferred if the government had given time to it, but I understand why they haven't. But that is not when the decision will be made. That is the second reading, and it's at that point we decide whether or not we want to investigate it further, send it to committee report stage, send it third reading, send it to the Lords at every stage will be scrutinized. That won't happen quickly, it won't happen overnight.

But it is important that we remember in this, I think, that the impetus is coming from people who are in that situation or who have had a loved one in that situation and who wanted the choice to, in their own time, decide when perhaps a palliative care for them had failed. And most people who make that decision don't actually go through with it. It's the reassurance that they can that's important to them, and I think we need to give them that choice. Thank you very much for talking to us and for talking to our audience. Thank you very much. Christine Jardine.

Politics, Leadership, Societal Change, Assisted Dying, Healthcare Legislation, Ethics, Bbc Newsnight