Proposals for assisted suicide panels fall “lamentably short”, the former President of the Family Division of the High Court of England and Wales has warned.
Sir James Munby says he has examined Kim Leadbeater’s new proposals for her assisted suicide Bill and concluded that the plans need to go much further if the panel is to be anything more than a rubber-stamping exercise.
The ‘multidisciplinary’ panels are part of a hastily introduced amendment to try to fix the backbencher’s controversial Bill by replacing her ‘ultimate safeguard’ involving a High Court judge giving approval to a person’s request to be killed, with a three-member panel, comprised of a social worker, lawyer and psychiatrist.
Panel requirements
The former judge raised concerns over the scope of the panel, explaining: “The panel is given an extraordinary degree of discretion in relation to the process it is to adopt.”
He highlighted that the only mandatory requirement of the panel is to hear from one of the two doctors involved in the patient’s request, and that anything further – even hearing from the patient – is at the panel’s discretion.
Sir James wrote that it is “very troubling” that there is an absence of “any requirement that the panel ‘must’ hear from and question both doctors (and not just one)”, and that the absence of “any requirement that the panel ‘must’ hear from and question the patient” is “quite extraordinary”.
He added: “Moreover, how is the panel to assess whether the application before it is voluntary if it does not hear from the patient?”
Omissions
Sir James commented: “the Bill is silent as to the process and procedures to be adopted. For example, is the panel to hear evidence on oath? Indeed, will the panel have power to administer an oath?”
Another omission, he noted, is the lack of a procedure for challenging evidence: “It says nothing about who should exercise that function; nor about the nature of any independent evidential investigation and nothing about who is to undertake this and who is to pay for it.”
He continued: “Without this, it will not be proper for a judge to be involved in the process as a member of the panel. For otherwise, the judge, and, indeed the panel, is little more than a rubber stamp providing a veneer of judicial approbation – and that is fundamentally unacceptable.”
Open and transparent
The retired judge commented: “If the panel is to perform its function effectively and do more than just ‘check the paperwork’ – if it is to be the real safeguard intended by its proponents – then its processes must be much more thorough than is currently proposed.”
He added: “I was and I remain strongly of the view that the integrity of the process and the maintenance of public confidence demand that there be a hearing in public in every case, and with an absolute minimum of reporting restrictions; that there should be no anonymisation of any of the participants (except, perhaps, for the patient during his or her lifetime); and that the judge (now, the panel) must be required to give and publish a judgment in every case.
“I said there can be no room here for secrecy or concealment. If there was to be a judicial process, it must be open and transparent.”
Inadequate safeguards
Sir James explained that the panel could, under the current wording, come to a decision without hearing from the patient or their family and could convene in private and not be required to provide any explanation for how they reached their decision.
Another issue he raised was how an application for a Commissioner to reconsider the panel’s decision is only possible if the panel refused to give the go-ahead to the assisted suicide.
Sir James explained that there might be circumstances whereby the panel approves a person’s decision to be killed, and that even if the Commissioner felt that decision had been reached inappropriately and would ordinarily seek to reconsider it, “There can be no reference to the Commissioner – and the patient dies.”
He concluded: “All in all, in relation to the involvement of the panel in the process, the Bill still falls lamentably short of providing adequate safeguards.”
Top psychiatrists warn staff shortages could render Leadbeater Bill unworkable
Leadbeater criticised for removing ‘ultimate safeguard’ from her assisted suicide Bill
Terminally ill could choose assisted suicide to save money under Leadbeater Bill
Christian groups call for national day of prayer against assisted suicide