MP: ‘Censor criticism of assisted suicide Bill committee’

An MP has called on Parliament to censor criticism of the Committee tasked with scrutinising Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill.

A champion of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, Kit Malthouse MP called on the Committee to consider ways to “correct” dissenting voices.

The Committee has been widely criticised for being unfairly stacked with supporters of assisted suicide, for excluding key opponents from presenting evidence in person, and for rejecting amendments to protect the vulnerable.

‘Disturbing’

After the Committee refused to introduce statutory protections for people with Down’s syndrome, Malthouse asked what could be done if anybody – including committee members – “attempt to misrepresent part of the debate on those amendments”.

Somebody, he continued, might “imply or state on social media that the committee has refused to look at accommodations for [people with Down’s syndrome], therefore disregarding their welfare under the Bill”.

That, he claimed, “would be a serious misrepresentation of the debate and the intention of the Committee. If a Member of the House or somebody external did that, what measures could we take to correct it?”

Lynn Murray, spokeswoman for Don’t Screen Us Out, described the MP’s intervention as “disturbing” and said he “appeared to be threatening organisations representing people with Down Syndrome simply for criticising the committee’s decision. We will not be silenced in our desire to protect the vulnerable.”

Unyielding

Danny Kruger MP, who is the leading opponent of the Bill on the Committee, summarised the day’s proceedings: “Another day in the Assisted Suicide bill committee. A series of amendments to make it safer were rejected.”

He reported that the committee had voted down proposals to ensure doctors do not suggest assisted suicide to patients, including children – though only adults would be eligible for assisted suicide under the Bill.

The MP added: “There will be no requirement of support for those with learning disabilities or autism to ensure they understand what they are agreeing to and are making a free choice.”

Alongside rejecting statutory protections for people with Down’s syndrome, amendments to ensure rigorous record keeping, a 28-day cooling off period, and requirements to deal with “remediable suicide risk factors” were also rejected.

Confusion

In an exchange with Leadbeater, Kruger asked if she believed doctors should be obliged to raise assisted suicide “in all cases where it may be an option for the patient”.

She said: “I agree that, under the provisions of the Bill, the doctor will have a duty to lay out options available to the patient, if they meet the eligibility criteria — absolutely. That is the whole purpose of the Bill.”

Seeking clarification, Kruger repeated the question. Leadbeater replied: “Well, that is the purpose of clause 4: the doctor has to lay out the options available to the patient as long as all the criteria are met.”

Later in the proceedings, Malthouse seemed to contradict Leadbeater, claiming that doctors were under no ‘obligation’ to raise assisted suicide with patients “in all circumstances”, but “only when they professionally think it is appropriate”.

‘Small wins, big losses’

Kruger did however welcome the approval of amendments “to ensure palliative care is offered, and not just ‘available’ but ‘appropriate’ pall care is discussed”.

He also hailed a legislative commitment to prevent doctors opposed to assisted suicide being forced to refer vulnerable patients to pro-assisted suicide colleagues.

He concluded: “Small wins, big losses.”