Danny Kruger
MP for East Wiltshire · Reform UK · United Kingdom
“There is what might be an important innovation in the text of this year’s sovereign grant annual report and accounts, which the Bill refers to and which the Minister is describing. Usually, the description of the sovereign’s role includes the term “defender of the faith”, but that term does not appear in this year’s report and accounts.”
“Research from the Department for Education confirms that children who move schools frequently often suffer poor outcomes, particularly children with special educational needs. That is why a number of armed forces families—people on average incomes—choose independent education to minimise the disruption that results from their postings.”
“Resilience is obviously the crucial question for the country, and the Government are right to be focusing on the need to strengthen the centre of Government to achieve that. My concern is about the legislation that has been trailed.”
“The Bill contains a lot of useful tightening of electoral law, and we are having a very important debate this afternoon. It is important that we think about how we police donations from abroad and from home. I pay tribute to the remarks made by the hon.”
“No, I am not going to give way. It is their right to support a political cause in their own country, where they are registered to vote and of which they are citizens. It is absolutely wrong to traduce them in that way.”
“That is what the populist revolt is doing, demonstrating the effectiveness and vibrancy of our democracy. Let me turn to the amendments that I support, because we do have a real threat to our democracy, and let me make these points as seriously and soberly as I can.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Danny Kruger, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 12.
“I absolutely agree. It is of course not just Christians who think that, but it is right that in our country we proudly stand on that ground, and defend the right of everybody to absolute freedom of belief. As I said, I think we do that, ultimately, because the foundation of our politics is Christian. I will refer quickly to the Holy Land, as other hon. Members have. I have become chair of the APPG on Christianity in the Holy Land, which was instigated by our former colleague David Linden, who is a sad loss to the House—at least on this topic, not on others. He encouraged me to take up the role, so I have been having a number of very powerful and moving conversations with Palestinian Christians about the state of the Church in the Holy Land.”
“It is important to acknowledge that in other countries that have assisted dying laws, our understanding is that, in all those jurisdictions, people with anorexia have qualified for and been given an assisted death. In 100% of the cases that we know about, they passed the capacity test that we would apply here in our country. That is my great concern.”
“Member for Bath and I are on different sides on this, and the Minister and I have been debating it over the last month or so, but I have to acknowledge my concern about the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Currently, there are patients in our NHS who are diagnosed with eating disorders—anorexia in particular—who are categorised as terminally ill by the system and put on a palliative care pathway, because the system decides that their condition is not in fact treatable. It is scandalous and tragic that people who have a condition that is eminently treatable are categorised as terminally ill. My great concern is that if we were to pass that Bill, we would end up with people being diagnosed as eligible for an assisted death.”
“I honour their expertise and commitment. As the hon. Member for Bath said, and as cannot be pointed out too often, eating disorders, and anorexia in particular, are treatable illnesses. The services are in absolute crisis, as we have heard, but we should never lose sight of the fact that the illnesses are treatable. There is clearly desperate confusion in the NHS between the physical and mental dimensions, particularly when it comes to the extreme acute phase of anorexia. We know it is the most dangerous mental illness in terms of the tragedy of death. There is clearly a lot to do in reconciling the mental and physical sides of our health service. The hon.”
“The answer included that it is like an addiction, or has the qualities of an addiction. There is apparently a genetic component, and a link with autism. As the hon. Member for Bath suggested, there is a clear element of social contagion—her points about social media are extremely important. It strikes me that in many ways anorexia is an illness of modernity. It is a consequence of the pressures that young people and, indeed, older people can face in this very difficult world we live in. That suggests that a multiplicity of responses are appropriate. I pay tribute not just to colleagues here, on the APPG and across the House who campaign on this issue, but to campaigners from outside Parliament, including Chelsea Roff, Hope Virgo, Agnes Ayton and others, whom I have got to know in the last couple of years.”
“I acknowledge and thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for her long campaign on this topic, for securing this debate and for all that she has done and will probably have to continue to do on this agenda for a while. I entirely endorse the campaign and the things that need to happen that she and the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) have outlined. Eating disorders present an utter tragedy to families and to young people. Last week I met a family in my constituency whose daughter is in the grip of anorexia. We had a long conversation about both the services available and the nature of the illness itself. I asked the simple question, “What is anorexia and where does it come from?” Despite the extent of their experience and all the reading they have done, it was a very difficult question to answer.”
“We must not give up on these young people. We must absolutely provide the services that are needed. We need to get our systems and our society right.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I entirely agree. It is vital to stress that point, and I am sure the Minister agrees. I agree with the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Salford that we need a complete reformation of the system—I will not repeat the points of the campaign, which I endorse. I am deeply concerned about the prospect of cuts to eating disorder services. It is a great shame that the proportion of NHS spending on mental health is declining. That is very significant. I pay tribute to the sufferers—these amazing people who battle through this awful illness. They are mostly girls but also young men—I know a young man who is still in the grip of the condition. And I pay tribute to their families. I emphasise, as I am sure the hon. Member for Bath would, given her experience, that there is hope.”
“Can the Minister confirm whether carer’s allowance was a deliberate target of the Government’s reforms, or did they not realise the impact of what they were doing to PIP because of the rush they were in? Do they think that taking £500 million from carers while giving above-inflation pay awards to the trade unions is the right priority, and does the Minister share the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s view that cutting support for carers and disabled people is like taking pocket money from children? Is that what he believes carer’s allowance is—pocket money?”
“Perhaps if they were not in such a rush, they would have realised that these crude reforms also impact carers. Some 150,000 people who gave up income to look after a loved one, and who rely on carer’s allowance to make ends meet, are now going to lose it. The Government are balancing the books on the backs of the people least able to take the weight. That is Labour: making other people pay for the fiasco of their Budget. First they came for the farmers, then for the pensioners, and now it is the carers—the most important people in our society, doing the most important job a human being can do, not for the money but for the love. The least the Government can do is to give them our support. That is what we did in government, so why will they not?”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) on bringing this important matter before the House. In government, my party supported carers: we increased carer’s allowance by £1,500 and, with the support of the Liberal Democrats, introduced carer’s leave. We are united again today in dismay at what this Government are doing. The Government had 14 years to prepare their welfare reforms. We had nothing for eight months, and then everything in a rush, because the Chancellor crashed the economy. With growth this year cut in half, inflation rising further, unemployment up, productivity down, debt interest soaring, a record tax burden and 200,000 people being pushed into absolute poverty by the measures taken by this Government, they have had an emergency Budget containing cuts to benefits for disabled people.”
“Furthermore, the new clause is also designed not only to alter fundamentally the national health service, but to enable the private sector to be paid from NHS funds to end the lives of terminally ill people—and not only that, but to do so with a Henry VIII power so broad as to enable any changes in the NHS or any law to facilitate that goal.”
“The explicit language that this is about ending people’s lives is avoided in the new clause. Why? I put it to the Committee that it is a hard thing to do: to take a red pen to Bevan’s legacy, to fundamentally change the NHS from one that is “designed to secure improvement…in the physical and mental health” of the people of England and Wales, and dedicated to “the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of…illness”, and to add to that founding clause “to end” the lives of terminally ill people. I will be blunter than the drafters have been. New clause 36 changes the NHS from being the national health service to the national health and assisted suicide service. That is its direct implication.”
“The duty on the Secretary of State under the National Health Service Act 1946, as updated in 2006, is to promote “a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England…and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness”— that is, physical and mental illness. That has been the purpose of the NHS since 1946. I find it curious that a linguistic sleight of hand is being practised in new clause 36. The new phrase, “voluntary assisted dying services” or “VAD services”, is introduced, and it is used to avoid having to spell out that section 1(1) of the NHS Act 2006 will now include references to “assistance to end” the lives of people in England and Wales—that is the language of the Bill as introduced, in the long title and in nearly every clause up to this point.”
“Labour rightly claims the credit for having introduced the NHS under the Attlee Government and in fact the Liberals also have a good claim to it—it was a Liberal, Beveridge, who first advocated the provision of a national health service—but what is not enough recognised is that, as I am sure my hon. Friends are proud to say, it was a Conservative Health Secretary who first put before the House of Commons a plan for a national health service: Henry Willink, Health Secretary in the wartime coalition Government. Unfortunately, the public voted us out of power in 1945 and it fell to Labour to implement a slightly different plan. Nevertheless, we can all claim some parentage of this great institution, the NHS. That is why it is so significant that in the new clauses we are debating, a fundamental change to the NHS in England is proposed.”
“Unlike clause 32 and new clause 36, which will replace it, new clause 37 does not make any reference to the health service in Wales. I think it is worth us teasing out the challenge to the devolution settlement that these new clauses represent; I am sure the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd will speak to that. I want to speak briefly, but I hope clearly and powerfully, to the essential challenge. Without getting too involved in the party politics, we all talk about “our NHS”, and in a sense it is our NHS: this nation’s great domestic institution, created in the 20th century in response to the shamefully inequitable provision of healthcare that preceded 1946.”
“This is the clause that committed the Secretary of State to make the financial commitments—commitments that were debated in principle when the House debated the money resolution on 22 January. Once again, I regret that important undertakings that were made by the Government and by the hon. Lady have, in the course of the debate subsequent to Second Reading and now subsequent to the money resolution, been superseded by further provisions. Amendment 538 is consequential on two new clauses, one of which is new clause 37, which will allow Welsh Ministers to set up a system to implement the Bill in Wales. This will give very wide powers to Welsh Ministers, including the powers to make provision about the service that would be outside the legislative competence of Welsh Ministers. That is significant.”
“Member for Spen Valley and people who support the Bill to speak to this point—is that the Bill will require the Government to fund the provision of assisted suicide services, but it makes no provision to fund the supply of palliative care. I think everyone in this Committee recognises the absolute imperative of a properly supported palliative care sector, and I deeply regret that although the Government are supporting a resourcing of this new service, there is no balancing commitment to provide what we have all acknowledged is the essential corollary of any assisted dying service. What is worse, in clause 32 and in new clause 36, which will replace it, we have something different. Last Wednesday night, just as the Committee rose, the hon. Member for Spen Valley tabled amendment 538, which would remove clause 32 from the Bill.”
“It is very good to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, on what is probably our last day in Committee. I fully expect that we will reject clause 32 in due course, so although I want to move my amendment, I have no intention of pushing it or any of the other amendments in this group to a vote, but I do want to take the opportunity to address the clause and to speak to the amendment in my name. Clause 32 was always going to be an important one, because it would have allowed the Government to provide money to fund the assistance to die; it would have allowed the Secretary of State to make financial arrangements to secure the provision of assistance under the Bill. What we might have been debating if we were sticking with this clause—I think it is still worth inviting the hon.”
“Member for Spen Valley said: “This service, like many others, will be delivered through a range of providers”. –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2025; c. 800.] I remain unclear about the extent to which this is an NHS monopoly, as it were, or whether there will be private provision that is privately paid for, or private provision that is publicly paid for. I would be grateful for the hon. Member’s clarification. Lastly, on the question of profit, in an article in The Times that appeared to have some briefing behind it, there was a suggestion that there would be a cap on the profit of private companies providing the service, limiting them to “making a reasonable profit”. Again, there is nothing in the new clauses about limitations on providers’ profits. If the hon.”
“799.] That now agrees with the Minister—fine, interesting; it is to be an NHS service not to be provided privately. But the new clauses do not rule out private provision, nor any profit making by providers or remuneration of people outside the NHS. Indeed, the new clauses refer to “voluntary assisted dying services”, which suggests the hon. Member for Spen Valley is supportive of services outside those that are NHS commissioned, which will be possible under subsections (1), (3) and (7)(a). That will be in line with comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, who made a very coherent case for private provision of assisted suicide if that is what Parliament chooses to legalise; he said that nothing should prevent someone from opting for private provision. In response, the hon.”
“We do not know the possible impact on general practice or medical specialists, nor how it might impact money that is available for palliative care. I hope the Minister can tell us more today about how he envisages the service being implemented, especially in the light of the British Medical Association conference earlier this month, which supported the motion that “Assisted dying is not a health activity and it must not take place in NHS or other health facilities”. That is a principle I agree with. On 5 March, the hon. Member for Spen Valley said: “there is no expectation that assisted dying would be set up as a private enterprise or service. It would be delivered within the provision of the NHS.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2025; c.”
“In contradiction to that, and I think more accurately, the Minister for Care told us that the promoter’s intent—speaking for the hon. Member for Spen Valley—is “to ensure that the assisted dying service is available as an integral part of the NHS. Officials are working on amendments to later clauses to establish the operating model for her consideration.” — [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2025; c. 802.] That is clearly what has happened, and it is where we are now. However, I am sorry to say that I do not feel that the operating model is now clear. We still do not have an impact assessment, we do not know how the Government envisage it working in practice, and important information is still lacking for the debate today.”
“I want to tease out a tension among the drafters and advocates of the Bill about exactly how the assisted suicide service will be facilitated and provided. We have got a bit closer to it, but some questions remain, which is regrettable when here we are on the very last day of the Committee’s debate. Last month, the hon. Member for Spen Valley told the Committee: “This is not assisted suicide by the state. The state is not involved.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 11 February 2025; c. 318.] I am perplexed by that. I think many members of the public would not agree with that analysis of how the Bill has evolved in Committee. If involving the state in the provision of this service was not intended, then that is not the Bill we have.”
“No, I fundamentally disagree: end-of-life care is healthcare. It is addresses symptoms and conditions, and it is designed in a way that is completely compatible with the founding principle of the NHS, whereas the Bill—I appreciate the honesty of the drafters in recognising this, even if they do not quite spell it out—and its proposal of an assisted suicide service is not compatible with the founding principle of the NHS. That is why adapting that founding subsection as in the original NHS Act is required. Of course I recognise that end-of-life care is healthcare and completely compatible with what the NHS does. I wish it were more part of the NHS—that is another debate. Palliative care should have been more closely integrated into NHS provision, and it still should be.”
“Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford said, we could see expos dedicated to providing the most luxury or glamorous forms of assisted death through private providers with NHS funding.”
“I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. We are all equally ethical and unethical—the point is that we respond to incentives, and incentives have their effect. Does she agree that there is a further concern? If we had a tariff system, which we probably would, that would by definition create a market, if there was the opportunity for private provision, to earn tariffs—to make more money the more assisted deaths one provides. Furthermore, to the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud that this is all perfectly fine and normal, what about the opportunity to top up the public provision—the tariff one gets from the NHS—with one’s own money, therefore definitely creating the opportunity for some sort of upmarket arrangement through the additional fees and services that might be provided? As the hon.”
“There are other medical professionals—ethical doctors—who do respond to incentives, such as those in the cosmetic surgery industry.”
“This is a very important debate, and my concern is that there is a naive assumption that the innate goodness of doctors will render them impervious to all the incentives in the system. As the hon. Lady suggests, if it were possible, as I think it is under the Bill, for a profit-making organisation—a company—to set itself up to provide an assisted suicide conveyer belt as a pathway through this process, and to earn money publicly or privately according to the volume of the provision it enables, we are setting up incentives that would corrupt the doctors who would be required to sign it off. I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire has such an optimistic view of human nature that he thinks that no doctor would respond to the incentives in the way that is clearly enabled through the Bill.”
“I would, but actually I am making an intervention. It may appear that I am making a speech, so I will soon sit down, but I would be interested in the hon. Gentleman’s response to the suggestion that even he —the paragon of virtue that he is—might not be entirely resistant to the economic incentives in the system. That is why we have an NHS that explicitly tries to exclude profit making from the provision of healthcare.”
“In response to the hon. Member for Spen Valley, the scenario that she mentions is exactly the problem in many healthcare systems around the world, particularly in America, where doctors are incentivised to deliver volumes of treatments and procedures that are often not strictly necessary. We do have a problem even in our own system with the over-prescription of certain medical treatments, particularly pharmaceuticals, so incentives do apply. Doctors are subject to them, and we do our best to regulate them out of the system. One of the great advantages of the NHS compared with other healthcare systems is that we manage to prevent the over-provision of services in response to economic incentives. That is a founding principle of the NHS that we are overriding with this process.”
“As ever, the hon. Gentleman is speaking very coherently in support of the Bill and the principles behind it. I think he does regard assisted suicide as another form of healthcare that, as he says, should therefore be completely consistent with the normal duties of every medical professional. I would genuinely like him to help me to understand this. Does he envisage the service being provided by bespoke clinics in the NHS? Would established professionals set themselves up with the purpose of delivering it, or would it genuinely just be something that any general practitioner would provide as part of their services? Does he imagine that there will be specialists in the NHS whose sole job, or most of whose job, would be to provide this service?”
“Does he agree that, with that single exception, it would be perfectly possible for an independent provider to set up to provide for the whole pathway of assisted death, with the single requirement that the co-ordinating doctor, who would manage the whole process from beginning to end, must get a second opinion from outside their organisation to sign the paperwork for the second assessment? With that single exception, the whole process could be managed by an independent, profit-making provider—commissioned by the NHS or otherwise—entirely on its own.”
“And yet the irony of this measure is that it is not specific to the patient. Genuine healthcare treats the symptoms and condition of the individual patient. This proposed treatment has nothing to do with the individual symptoms or the condition of the patient; it just kills them. It is totally unrelated to the condition, which is why it is not healthcare. The hon. Gentleman suggested earlier that the Bill somehow ensures that the provision and the pathway are deliberately fragmented because the second doctor needs to be independent of the first.”
“The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I am not sure that anything in the Bill would preclude a private provider—“Virgin Health” or some such organisation—from providing the whole pathway of the assisted death, including employing, albeit in separate clinics or separate practices, the two doctors who would provide the two assessments. The provider would comply with the Bill, but the doctors might be part of the same organisation even if they work in different practices.”
“I share all the hon. Lady’s concerns. In relation to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, is she aware that G4S has a health services division in the UK that directly employs doctors and other healthcare professionals?”
“First, on the proposed amendment to the NHS Act, will the Minister confirm that the implication is that it is not currently possible to deliver assisted dying services under the Act? Secondly, to help me understand new clause 36, is it proposed that the Government will amend the NHS Act through regulations, a statutory instrument, or will the courts read the new clause as inferring that assisted dying is compatible with the NHS Act? Is there an intention to change the wording of the NHS Act, or is it just that we should now read “healthcare” as including assisted dying? I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain, because it is not clear to me from the phrasing.”
“I hope the hon. Lady does not really think that I or others think the status quo defensible. There are clearly major problems with our palliative care system that we all recognise and want to improve. I would be grateful if she acknowledged that we need to improve palliative care. On the hon. Lady’s point about remuneration, the Bill specifies that it would not be regarded as illegitimate for doctors to earn reasonable remuneration. What does she think “reasonable” is? How would we designate the appropriate remuneration for doctors? Does she agree that there is nothing in the Bill to stop private providers supplying the service and making money from it?”
“I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 32 disagreed to. Clause 33 Notifications to Chief Medical Officers”
“Lastly, with all due respect to whoever comes in as commissioner, the replacement of the chief medical officer with the commissioner represents a downgrading of the scrutiny the Bill offers. We know that the commissioner is likely to be a retired judge, which is a very distinguished position, but they will not be somebody with the serious political status of the chief medical officer. The CMO role is equivalent to a permanent secretary. I am sure the hon. Member for Spen Valley acknowledges that our current CMO is probably the best-known public servant in the country. It is very significant that we are proposing to downgrade the role fulfilled by the CMO. I do not think a retired High Court judge will have the same status.”
“Robert Clark, the former Attorney-General of Victoria, is very concerned about the operation of the legislation in Australia. He has highlighted how the voluntary assisted dying review board, which is a similar arrangement to the commission proposed here, relies on paperwork from the doctors themselves, with no routine audits or real-time checks. He pointed out that a tiny group of doctors—in fact, only 10—handled 55% of all cases in 2023-24, according to the review board’s data. Many of those doctors were advocates for the legalisation of the programme. I am concerned about the implications of a system that effectively trusts doctors to provide information without any proper review.”
“I appreciate that the amendments are necessary for the new design of the Bill, but I want to express my concern that they establish an assisted dying regime that is left to monitor itself. When the person who facilitates these profound decisions is also the one who reviews them, it threatens not just the integrity of the system but the safety and trust of those it serves. Without labouring the point, other jurisdictions have significant problems with reporting and the information being the responsibility of those delivering the service. In Oregon, where assisted dying has been legal since 1997, the state relies on doctors to self-report compliance. We are left trusting that every form filled in will tell the whole story.”
“I am keen on actual judges who sit in court with the full authority of a judge, not a retired judge sitting at the head of a quango very far away from the decisions made about assisted dying. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I appreciate the fact that there will be a duty to consult. We want to have as much input from the CMO as possible in the administration of the service.”
“It is held out as a safeguard, and that is exactly how we should regard it—I hope it will be that. Having a proper debate and proper ministerial accountability will allow us to check the operation of the Bill thoroughly and enable Parliament to keep it under very close scrutiny.”
“There is a lot left for ministerial discretion, guidance and codes of practice, as we have debated, and indeed new powers have been added, including a widening of the Henry VIII power. I think, then, that it is important to bring forward the review period. As my amendment 526 suggests, I also think it is not sufficient simply to undertake a review, even one that is annual or every three years. There must be a guaranteed right to a debate and to hold Ministers to account at the Dispatch Box, which my amendment would insist on. Lastly, on the inherent potential for expansion due to the wide discretion that the Bill still gives future Ministers, my concern is that the review itself might become a Trojan horse for further expansion, because that is what we see in other countries.”
“I concur with the points made by the hon. Member for Bradford West. I very much appreciate the presence of clause 35 in the Bill—it is helpful that we ensure a proper review—but, as the hon. Lady said, five years feels too long to wait, so I support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for York Central, as well as amendments 493 to 495, tabled by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, who has suggested a three-year review period. My simple further point is that we are potentially creating threshold legislation: once we take the step down this road, there is no going back. The Bill leaves so much open for further expansion, I suggest, but certainly for the modification and clarification of the operation of the legislation.”
“I do not want to take the Committee’s time, but I invite the Bill’s promoter or the Minister to make an observation about the implications of clause 38, because the power to make “such supplementary, incidental or consequential provision…as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purposes or in consequence of any provision made by this Act.” reads to me as extremely broad. Not to repeat the point ad nauseam, but I am concerned, as ever, about the degree of discretion given to Ministers—most of it under the negative procedure. I invite the promoter or the Minister to lay out, in as much detail as they are able, the purpose of this clause and what sorts of provisions it might enable.”
“We would require them somehow to interview the abuser, so I think we would get into difficult territory if we insisted on evidence of coercion in order to deny the application on that basis. I hope that that helps to explain the purpose behind my amendment. I know it is slightly academic, because we are not proceeding with amendment 518, but I hope the Minister and the hon. Member for Spen Valley reflect on the points made by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge and take them on board in subsequent amendments or guidance.”
“That is an example of where it is important to remove the intention of coercion from the definition. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge about the value and necessity of including intention where we are talking about the criminal offence of inducing somebody to have an assisted death. Lastly, let us think about this from the point of view of the doctor or panel who are being asked to approve the application. If the definition of coercion includes the intention to coerce, we are inviting—in fact, requiring— the doctor or panel to seek evidence of the intention of the person doing the coercion, rather than just the fact of the patient having been coerced.”
“An example would be where an abusive husband, through abuse, victimisation, relentless unkindness and perhaps the direct communication of, “You’d be better off dead,” has the effect of coercing his victim—his wife—into seeking an assisted death, which might well be subject to criminal prosecution on these terms. He would nevertheless be able potentially to claim that that was not his intention, and, indeed, perhaps it was not. He might not have had the explicit thought in his head, “I want to make her apply for an assisted death.” Nevertheless, that is the consequence of his coercive behaviour. I would hope that when the doctors assessed that particular case and came across evidence of that pattern of abuse, they would conclude that this person was being coerced, and would therefore not award the applicant the green light to proceed.”