As the Committee meets for its fourth week, pro-assisted suicide MPs continue to prioritise ideology over the protection of vulnerable patients.
Green light to ‘doctor shopping’
Despite warnings that Kim Leadbeater’s ‘Assisted Dying’ Bill would allow patients to ‘shop around’ until they found a doctor to approve their assisted suicide application, the Committee rejected amendments that would have prevented this or paused it until there was a significant change in their condition.
Sarah Olney, who proposed multiple amendments to address ‘doctor shopping’, highlighted a worrying example from the US state of Oregon.
. @sarahjolney1 shares a story from Oregon with the assisted suicide Bill Committee, illustrating the risks of abuse from ‘doctor shopping’. pic.twitter.com/mINkIX3HTJ
— The Christian Institute (@christianorguk) March 11, 2025
‘Own goal’
Naz Shah said it was “baffling” that evidence presented to a multidisciplinary panel approving a patient’s application would not be heard under oath, when it is required in lesser cases of property or contract.
Raising concerns from former High Court judge Sir James Munby, she reminded the Committee that many MPs previously voted for the Bill because “judicial oversight” was the ‘ultimate safeguard’ of the application process.
But Leadbeater admitted that her decision to replace a High Court judge’s approval with a panel removes any such oversight from the Bill, as the members would only be acting in their capacity as ‘experts’, not ‘judges’.
Kim Leadbeater admits her assisted suicide panels are not “judge plus”, despite arguing this for weeks. She now says the panels are “not a judicial entity”. pic.twitter.com/2wfOHVSDA8
— The Christian Institute (@christianorguk) March 12, 2025
MPs expressed concern that the panel’s expertise comes far too late in the process, and Sean Woodcock listed a number of things that it is not required to do: hear from one of the two registered medical practitioners; question the other registered medical practitioner; hear from the patients’ relatives or even question the patients themselves.
Prolonged death
Leading Bill opponent Danny Kruger cited statistics from Oregon that between 2012 and 2022 there was an eleven per cent complication rate, with patients suffering regurgitation, seizures and regaining consciousness. Over half of all deaths took over 53 minutes — the opposite of “safe, pain-free, curated deaths”.
He proposed amendment 362 to require doctors to inform patients of the dangers of assisted suicide, including the risk of pain, but this was defeated by 13 to 9 votes and he was accused of spreading “scare stories”.
Assisted suicide does not always offer “safe, pain-free, curated deaths”. It is “not risk free”.@danny__kruger cites the horrifying stats from Oregon, which show that over half of all deaths took over 53 minutes. pic.twitter.com/61x9oGAVKf
— The Christian Institute (@christianorguk) March 11, 2025
Mr Kruger asked what a doctor would be expected to do if a person suffered side-effects after taking assisted suicide drugs. Should the doctor stand by, revive the patient, or allow euthanasia? He noted that the Bill leaves the question unanswered, and its supporters refused to answer the question. Debate on this will continue when MPs reach Clause 18.
Coercion
When Rebecca Paul suggested that doctors should ask patients why they are seeking assisted suicide, pro-assisted suicide MP Rachel Hopkins argued that such questions would be “lessening an individual’s autonomy” to end their lives.
Amendment 468, which would have required doctors to enquire about a patient’s motives to ensure there was no coercion, was defeated by 15 to 7 votes.
But Kruger emphasised that there is nothing to prevent a patient from seeking assisted suicide because they feel like a burden, and Mrs Olney shared palliative care doctors’ evidence that feelings of uselessness gradually fade after receiving a terminal diagnosis.
MPs also warned that patients will not be strongly encouraged to speak to their next of kin about their decision to opt for assisted suicide, even if the doctor believes it is in the person’s best interest.
Medical records ‘insufficient’
Dr Sojan Joseph raised “grave concerns” over Leadbeater’s success in restricting the medical history a doctor would assess to inform their decision.
He warned that by only reviewing the parts deemed ‘relevant’, a doctor may be unable to assess the mental health impacts of drugs a patient could have been taking for a significant period.
Mr Kruger also cited evidence from disability charities, demonstrating that widespread inaccuracies in NHS records would make a short summary of a patient’s medical history insufficient.
The Committee continues its scrutiny today.
