Image Description: Brown & Cream Coloured Image Depicting a Typewriter With Wording "Human Rights Act 1998" Typed On Paper. Image Credit: PhotoFunia.com Category: Vintage Typewriter.

The UK Government’s Quiet War on Disabled People: Are Human Rights Under Threat?

Image Description: Brown Coloured Image depicting a Court Room Scene Created By AI Image Created By AI Bing Co-Pilot Designer. Powered By DALL E:3

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, medical, or policy advice. Readers discretion is advised as some of the external links use wording of a sensitive nature. The article aims to provide a fact-based analysis of the Assisted Dying & Mental Health Bill and its potential implications for disability & human rights. Readers are encouraged to conduct further research and consult professionals for specific concerns. The views expressed are based on publicly available information and do not imply any endorsement or opposition to the bill.

“How Government Policies on Mental Health, Disability, and Human Rights Are Threatening the Most Vulnerable”

“Policymakers, including Members of Parliament and key stakeholders, are not immune to disabilities. At any moment, they, or someone close to them—a partner, parent, or child—could face a life-altering condition. Disabilities do not discriminate; they can arise from chronic illnesses, neurological disorders, or even a sudden accident. The reality is that no one is exempt from the possibility of becoming disabled, and this should serve as a powerful reminder that policies must be inclusive, compassionate, and reflective of the challenges faced by millions. Ensuring equitable support and accessibility is not just a matter of governance but of basic human empathy and foresight“.

The UK government’s recent policy shifts have raised serious concerns among disability rights advocates and human rights activists. From proposals to increase sectioning powers under the Mental Health Bill to discussions about withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), it appears that the government is quietly eroding protections for the most vulnerable members of society.

The Echoes of a Dark Past: The ‘Useless Eaters’ Mentality

Historically, regimes that sought to cut costs at the expense of disabled and mentally ill individuals framed them as burdens on society. The term “useless eaters”, infamously used by the Nazi regime, was part of a dehumanizing ideology that justified euthanasia programs targeting disabled individuals. While the UK government has not used such language explicitly, its policies reflect a similar underlying belief that disabled people are a financial strain rather than valued members of society.

Recent welfare policies, such as tightening eligibility for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and increased scrutiny over Universal Credit disability claims, indicate a shift towards making it harder for disabled individuals to receive the support they need. The question is whether these restrictions, coupled with changes in mental health legislation, are part of a broader agenda to reduce the number of people receiving state benefits.

The Mental Health Bill: Expanding Powers to Section Individuals

One of the most alarming developments is the government’s proposal to give doctors and nurses greater powers to section individuals under the Mental Health Act. This change raises ethical concerns, particularly for neurodivergent individuals and those with complex mental health conditions.

Critics worry that this could lead to a rise in forced hospitalizations, removing people from their communities and placing them in institutions where they may not receive appropriate care. If implemented alongside stricter welfare policies, there is a risk that individuals who are denied financial support could be more easily institutionalized rather than supported in the community.

This raises an important question: Is the government prioritizing control over care? Instead of investing in community-based support for mental health and disability services, they appear to be expanding the state’s ability to detain individuals who do not fit within their rigid criteria for independence.

Withdrawal from the ECHR: Ending the Last Line of Defense?

Adding to these concerns is the government’s discussion about withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ECHR underpins the Human Rights Act 1998, which protects fundamental freedoms such as the right to a fair trial, freedom from discrimination, and protection from inhumane treatment.

If the UK withdraws from the ECHR, the consequences would be severe:

  • Disabled people would lose key legal protections that have allowed them to challenge unfair benefit assessments and mistreatment in care settings.
  • There would be fewer legal avenues for holding the government accountable, as individuals would no longer be able to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
  • The government could impose even harsher welfare and institutionalization policies without fear of violating human rights laws.

For disabled individuals, this could mean a rapid rollback of rights that have taken decades to establish.

A Dangerous Pattern: Are We Heading Towards Institutionalization Over Support?

When viewed together, these developments paint a worrying picture. The erosion of welfare support, expansion of state control over mental health, and withdrawal from human rights protections create an environment where disabled people could face systemic discrimination and forced institutionalization.

If the government succeeds in removing itself from the ECHR, it will no longer be bound by international human rights laws, meaning it could further restrict benefits, reduce legal protections for disabled individuals, and increase state control over those deemed ‘unfit’ for independent living.

What Can Be Done?

Advocates, legal professionals, and disability rights groups must raise awareness and challenge these changes before they become law. Pressure must be placed on policymakers to uphold the UK’s commitments to human rights and disability protections.

  • Public campaigns and petitions can highlight the risks of withdrawing from the ECHR.
  • Legal challenges can be pursued to protect the rights of disabled people against discriminatory policies.
  • Community action can help ensure that disabled individuals receive the support they need rather than being forced into institutions or left without resources.

Assisted Dying and Disability Rights: A Policy for Compassion or a Dangerous Precedent?

The UK Parliament is once again debating the Assisted Dying Bill, a proposal that would allow terminally ill individuals to seek medical assistance in ending their lives. Supporters argue that this is about dignity and choice, but disability rights activists fear that it could set a dangerous precedent—one that devalues the lives of disabled people and creates pressure to end suffering rather than provide support.

With recent government policies reducing financial and social protections for disabled individuals, some are asking: Is this bill purely about individual rights, or does it fit into a broader agenda that prioritizes cost-cutting over care?

What Does the Assisted Dying Bill Propose?

The latest Assisted Dying Bill, similar to previous versions, proposes that individuals who are:

  • Terminally ill with a prognosis of six months or less to live,
  • Mentally competent to make an informed decision,
  • Making the request voluntarily, free from coercion,

…would be eligible to request medically assisted death. The process would involve assessments from two doctors and final approval from a High Court judge.

While this may seem like a straightforward measure to ensure dignity for those facing unavoidable death, disability rights groups have repeatedly warned of potential risks.

Why Are Disability Rights Advocates Concerned?

  1. A “Slippery Slope” for Disabled People
    • In countries where assisted dying laws have been introduced, eligibility has often expanded over time. For example, in Canada and the Netherlands, assisted dying laws originally covered only terminal illness but were later expanded to include non-terminal disabilities and mental health conditions.
    • UK activists worry that the bill could follow a similar trajectory, leading to disabled individuals feeling societal pressure to end their lives rather than receive support.
  2. The Risk of Coercion
    • Many disabled people rely on family members and caregivers, meaning there is a risk of subtle or overt pressure to seek assisted dying.
    • With social care funding being cut, some fear that disabled individuals might opt for assisted death not because they truly want to, but because they feel like a burden on their families or the system.
  3. Economic Pressures and Government Cost-Cutting
    • The timing of the bill raises concerns, as it coincides with policies that make it harder for disabled people to access benefits, social care, and mental health support.
    • If disabled individuals and those with chronic illnesses find themselves facing increasing hardship and reduced support, they may feel that they have no real choice but to end their lives.
  4. Undermining the Right to Live with Dignity
    • The UK already has significant barriers to accessible housing, employment opportunities, and healthcare for disabled individuals.
    • Instead of addressing these systemic issues, the introduction of assisted dying may send the message that disabled lives are less valuable or not worth sustaining.

Is There Evidence That This Ties Into a Broader Government Agenda?

While there is no direct evidence of a coordinated effort to reduce the disabled population, there is a pattern of policies that de-prioritize the needs of disabled individuals:

  • Welfare Reforms: Increasing restrictions on PIP and Universal Credit have made financial support harder to access.
  • Mental Health Legislation: Expanding state powers to section individuals suggests greater institutional control over vulnerable people.
  • Potential Withdrawal from the ECHR: If the UK government removes itself from European human rights laws, there would be fewer legal safeguards for disabled individuals challenging unfair policies.

Viewed together, these factors contribute to a climate where disabled individuals may feel less valued, less supported, and more vulnerable to coercion—all of which could influence decisions about assisted dying.

Compassion or Cost-Cutting?

The Assisted Dying Bill presents a moral and ethical dilemma. While proponents frame it as a compassionate choice for the terminally ill, disability rights groups warn that it could open the door to systemic devaluation of disabled lives. If the government is truly committed to dignity and autonomy, it must first ensure that disabled people have access to adequate healthcare, financial support, and social care before introducing legislation that could place them at risk. Before legalizing assisted dying, society must ask itself: Are we offering people a choice to die—or leaving them with no choice but to die?

The UK government’s approach to disability rights, mental health bill, and human rights law is cause for serious concern. These policies, when combined, could lead to a society where disabled individuals are stripped of their autonomy, denied financial support, and placed under state control. If we do not act now, we risk allowing history to repeat itself. The rights of disabled people must NOT be sacrificed in the name of cost-cutting measures. It is time to push back against policies that prioritize financial savings over human dignity.

If The UK Leaves ECHR

if the UK were to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), it would no longer be bound by its rulings, and UK courts would not be required to follow ECHR case law. However, a dual-nationality lawyer (UK/EU) could still represent clients in the UK, but their ability to rely on the ECHR would depend on the specific legal framework in place at the time.

If the UK withdraws from the ECHR, individuals in the UK may lose the ability to appeal cases to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg. However, EU citizens and dual nationals could still bring cases to the ECtHR against other ECHR member states. If the lawyer is also practicing in an EU country that remains under the ECHR, they could still use it in cases outside the UK.

That said, if the UK replaces the Human Rights Act 1998 with a domestic alternative, the legal landscape would shift significantly, and arguments based on ECHR principles might carry less weight in UK courts. However, international human rights obligations under other treaties, such as the UN Conventions, might still offer avenues for advocacy.

However, a dual-nationality lawyer (UK/EU) could still represent clients in the UK and argue human rights cases, but the legal framework would change.

Key Considerations:

  1. Domestic UK Human Rights Law
    • The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) currently incorporates the ECHR into UK law. If the UK leaves the ECHR, Parliament may replace or amend the HRA, which could limit individuals’ ability to challenge human rights violations based on ECHR principles.
  2. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Jurisdiction
    • If the UK is no longer bound by the ECHR, individuals in the UK would lose direct access to the ECtHR.
    • However, if a person has EU citizenship or residency in an EU country, they might still bring cases via another European jurisdiction where ECHR rights remain enforceable.
  3. Dual-Nationality Lawyer & EU Legal Backing
    • A UK/EU lawyer could still argue for human rights protections in UK courts based on international human rights law, such as the UN treaties or the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (for EU-related cases).
    • If their client has an EU connection (citizenship, residency, or business in the EU), they might be able to bring a case in an EU country where ECHR protections still apply.
  4. Strategic Legal Routes
    • Even outside the ECHR, a UK/EU lawyer could use other legal mechanisms, such as the UN Human Rights Committee or international legal principles, to challenge UK decisions.

A dual-nationality UK/EU lawyer could still represent clients in the UK, but their ability to rely on the ECHR would depend on the UK’s legal framework at the time. If the UK completely withdrew from the ECHR and removed human rights protections, they would need to rely on alternative legal arguments through international law or EU mechanisms (where applicable).

Examples of Different Scenarios

scenarios based on different types of clients and cases a UK/EU dual-national lawyer might handle if the UK leaves the ECHR.

Scenario 1: A UK Client Facing a Human Rights Violation by the Government

Example: A disabled person is denied essential benefits, violating their right to dignity and a fair hearing.

  • If the UK leaves the ECHR, they cannot appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
  • A UK/EU lawyer could still challenge this under UK law, but their options depend on whether the UK replaces the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) with weaker legislation.
  • If international treaties (like UN conventions) apply, the lawyer could bring a case through the UN Human Rights Committee, but this lacks direct enforcement power.
  • Alternative: If the UK client has EU ties (such as property, business, or citizenship), the lawyer might argue the case in an EU court where ECHR protections remain intact.

Scenario 2: An EU Citizen Living in the UK Facing a Human Rights Violation

Example: A Polish citizen living in London is unlawfully detained by UK authorities.

  • Since they are an EU national, the lawyer could explore legal options in EU courts under EU law (if their case involves EU rights like free movement).
  • If they are still covered by the ECHR via their home country, they could bring a claim to the ECtHR through Poland’s legal system.
  • If they have no EU legal route, the lawyer is limited to UK courts, which may have reduced human rights protections.

Scenario 3: A UK Client with an EU Connection Seeking ECHR Protection

Example: A UK business owner with Irish citizenship sues the UK government for violating their right to free expression.

  • If they hold dual UK/EU nationality, their lawyer might argue the case in an EU country’s courts if their EU citizenship gives them protection under ECHR-linked laws.
  • They cannot take the UK directly to the ECtHR, but they might seek justice via Ireland’s legal system, if Irish courts allow it.
  • The lawyer would need to prove that the case has cross-border relevance (e.g., an impact on their EU business or travel rights).

Scenario 4: A UK Lawyer Taking a Case to the ECtHR via Another Country

Example: A UK human rights case involves an issue that affects both UK and EU citizens.

  • If the lawyer has EU nationality (e.g., French/UK dual citizen), they could collaborate with EU-based lawyers to file the case from an EU country where ECHR protections still apply.
  • If the case has cross-border implications, an EU court might be able to pressure the UK government through international legal principles.
  • However, this would be complex and depend on how much the UK isolates itself from human rights treaties.

Conclusion

  • A UK/EU lawyer can still represent UK clients in human rights cases, but they will face more barriers if the UK withdraws from the ECHR.
  • The lawyer’s ability to use ECHR arguments depends on their client’s EU ties (citizenship, residency, business, etc.).
  • International human rights bodies (UN, EU courts, etc.) might still offer alternative legal routes, but enforcement would be weaker than before.
  • If the UK introduces a weaker Bill of Rights, human rights protections will likely become more restricted, making legal challenges harder within the UK itself.

This article is part of an ongoing effort to highlight the realities facing disabled individuals in the UK. If you have been affected by these issues, share your story and join the fight for human rights.

Stand Up For Human Rights Logo

www.ohchr.org/en/get-involved

Andrew Jones Journalist
+ posts

Andrew Jones is a seasoned journalist renowned for his expertise in current affairs, politics, economics and health reporting. With a career spanning over two decades, he has established himself as a trusted voice in the field, providing insightful analysis and thought-provoking commentary on some of the most pressing issues of our time.

Spread the love

Related Post