Some of the key moments from this week’s scrutiny of Westminster’s assisted suicide Bill.
As consideration of Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill resumed this week, observers were astonished that pro-bill MPs on the Committee voted down all attempts to introduce safeguards to Clause 1 of the Bill.
Clause 1 outlines that a person must have “a clear, settled and informed wish” for assisted suicide, and that they are not being “coerced or pressured” into it.
Amendments to protect people from choosing assisted suicide due to coercion or feeling like a burden were rejected by Kim Leadbeater and her allies, including two supposedly neutral Government ministers. Even one to ensure access to palliative care was voted down, by the same 15 to 8 margin as nearly every other amendment.
This morning the Leadbeater Bill committee voted to let Clause 1 go through unamended – having rejected safeguards to protect the mentally ill, disabled people, those influenced or encouraged by others or those seeking assisted suicide to save their family money. We were told at… pic.twitter.com/Iml3W1DLDv
— Danny Kruger (@danny__kruger) February 25, 2025
No need for palliative care conversation
Naz Shah (Labour) spoke powerfully as she moved an amendment that would have ensured patients had to meet with a palliative care specialist before deciding to end their lives through assisted suicide.
Naz Shah MP tells the assisted suicide committee there is no equal access to palliative care and a lack of trust in services already. “We need to strengthen palliative care.” pic.twitter.com/W8MPRtjNhG
— The Christian Institute (@christianorguk) February 25, 2025
She was backed by Danny Kruger (Conservative) who said many GPs lack knowledge about end of life care, echoing evidence from the palliative care sector.
MPs voted down amendments that would have required those seeking assisted suicide to be counselled on pain alleviation by a palliative care specialist first.
Danny Kruger MP told the Committee he was “astonished”. pic.twitter.com/rxTXP25MEc
— The Christian Institute (@christianorguk) February 25, 2025
But Health Minister Stephen Kinnock told the committee that the proposed safeguard was a ‘concern’ as it would “would increase demand for palliative care specialists”. He was backed by his fellow pro-assisted suicide MPs who claimed it would result in assisted suicide requests being ‘bogged down’.
Naz Shah MP tells the assisted suicide committee there is no equal access to palliative care and a lack of trust in services already. “We need to strengthen palliative care.” pic.twitter.com/W8MPRtjNhG
— The Christian Institute (@christianorguk) February 25, 2025
Shah pushed back:
100,000 people in this country do not access palliative care. Palliative care is absolutely essential when we are talking about end of life… It’s not ‘bogging down’ when we are talking about providing an assisted death.
The amendment was rejected meaning some patients will be faced with a choice between fast access to assisted suicide or months of waiting for treatment.
Shah has put forward a separate amendment to prevent conversations about assisted suicide until 28 days had elapsed from a patient receiving a terminal diagnosis.
Bill still open to anorexic patients
Leadbeater’s own amendment to stop people accessing assisted suicide only on the basis of disability or mental disorder was accepted, even though, as Rebecca Paul (Conservative) explained, it does not protect people with anorexia who become terminally ill due to malnutrition.
Pro-assisted suicide groups are known to recommend starvation methods to people who are not eligible and Naz Shah pointed to 60 documented international cases of people with eating disorders accessing assisted suicide or euthanasia. Danny Kruger’s amendments to prevent those with eating disorders, and people who starve themselves, from becoming eligible for assisted suicide were rejected.
Tragic to hear @NazShahBfd MP share that there are at least 60 documented cases of individuals with eating disorders who have died by assisted suicide internationally.
Each of these deaths were avoidable. pic.twitter.com/4roVcgHFJ2
— The Christian Institute (@christianorguk) February 25, 2025
Kruger also sought to reduce eligibility to those with a one-month prognosis after the committee heard that 47 per cent of patients predicted to have six months to live outlive their prognosis. Again, the amendment was rejected.
Suicide prevention vs autonomy
Rebecca Paul highlighted the rise in unassisted suicide rates wherever assisted suicide laws are passed, but the conflict between upholding national suicide prevention strategies and passing the proposed law was fully laid bare by Danny Kruger.
He said the committee was accepting that if someone has capacity to end their own life they have made “a rational decision, which other people should support.”
Challenging MPs he asked how they could intervene and stop someone jumping from a bridge if the person was making a settled and informed wish. Unable to answer, Tom Gordon return to the one of the Bill’s supporters’ recent soundbites: that ‘assisted dying’ and suicide are “entirely different”.
Throughout deliberations, pro-Bill MPs have argued autonomy should trump safeguards.
Doctors should protect vulnerable patients
Debate began on special protections for patients with Down Syndrome.
Daniel Francis (Labour) spoke of his personal experience as the father of a child with cerebral palsy. He noted that the Mental Capacity Act deems many who require the support of family to have capacity so they can live an independent life – such as buying coffees or banking – before adding: “I don’t believe it was written for this scenario, Chair.”
.@danfrancis02 MP says he does not believe the Mental Capacity Act is suitable for assessing capacity in the case of assisted suicide. A view crucially shared by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. pic.twitter.com/ubnPTpDnbX
— The Christian Institute (@christianorguk) February 26, 2025
Debate continues on how to protect vulnerable people from the sharpest edges of this Bill.
