MPs hear of “impossible” assisted dying Bill

EXPERT witnesses giving evidence to MPs at Committee Stage of the ‘Assisted Dying’ Bill have said the Bill as it stands would send the message that feeling like a burden is a valid reason to choose assisted suicide. Others said patients could request assisted suicide because of the absence of adequate palliative care, whilst a former High Court judge said provisions for senior judges to ‘rubber-stamp’ applications would be “impossible” to implement.

On 16 October 2024, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater introduced her Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in Parliament. On 29 November, a packed House of Commons heard robust debate from MPs on both sides of the argument, with a vote of 330 to 275 sending the Bill to Committee Stage, where selected MPs scrutinise the Bill line by line.

Due to it being a Private Member’s Bill, the usual lengthy and detailed parliamentary scrutiny of Government Bills is not taking place, with opponents saying the Bill is being rushed through. In the November debate, many MPs said they voted for it only in the hope that it could be improved, or because they wished to hear further debate on the subject, but warned that at the final vote, they could vote against it.

Last week, MPs selected by Ms Leadbeater to sit on the Bill’s Committee – disproportionately made up of those in favour of assisted suicide – took oral evidence from experts from some countries where similar laws have been adopted, and from UK medical, nursing and legal professionals.

Dr Jessica Kaan, from End of Life Washington, told the Committee that feeling like a burden was a valid reason to choose assisted suicide [1], and Alex Greenwich, a Sydney MP, claimed that legalised assisted suicide was “an important form of suicide prevention”. [2] Professor Nicola Ranger, Chief Executive and General Secretary at the Royal College of Nursing, agreed with the suggestion that patients could request assisted suicide because of the absence of adequate palliative care [3], and former High Court Judge Sir Nicholas Mostyn questioned the workability of the Bill’s requirement for final approval by a High Court judge. [4]

As a result of the evidence, contrary to Ms Leadbeater initially stressing the legal ‘rubber stamp’ means her Bill has “the most robust and strongest” protections in the world [5], her allies now suggest parts of the Bill requiring High Court involvement could be changed. [6]

The Christian Institute is one of many organisations, Christian and otherwise, seeking to resource those with concerns about the Bill. Simon Calvert, Deputy Director of The Christian Institute, said: “The Committee’s proceedings were very rushed, with the Chair regularly curtailing questions and cutting off witnesses mid-sentence. Baroness Falkner, Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, criticised the lack of transparency and consultation around the Committee process. [7]

“Ms Leadbeater says her Bill is about ‘autonomy’ and ‘choice’. But palliative care doctor Rachel Clarke told the Committee that ‘autonomy is predicated on having meaningful choices. …If [high-quality medical care] is not available to you, you are potentially being pushed towards ‘choosing’… the route of assisted dying – not freely and not autonomously.’” [8]

One of the biggest single concerns about the Bill, from opponents and supporters alike, is coercion. But there was consensus among the medics who gave evidence that coercion is hard to spot. It can be subtle, and in the words of Dr Rachel Clarke, even ‘unintentional’. [9]

The Committee hearings took a strange turn when Professor Sam Ahmedzai claimed that a person’s autonomy means that their family should not question their decision to seek assisted suicide, and that a relative trying to dissuade a loved one from taking their own life is engaging in ‘family coercion’! [10] Dr Ryan Spielvogel, an ‘assisted dying’ provider in California, took the most extreme position of all, telling the Committee that it should be “illegal” for families to “interfere with a patient’s right to make this choice”. [11]

Simon Calvert added: “The more this Bill is scrutinised, the more obvious it becomes how dangerous it is for the most vulnerable in our society. We hope MPs who allowed the Bill to proceed, either for more debate, or to see if it could be improved, will now realise what’s needed is not a Bill to help people commit suicide, but a Bill to invest in better, local palliative care right across England and Wales. We are working with MPs across the political spectrum to encourage them to vote against this Bill at Third Reading, possibly in April, when the Commons as a whole next gets to vote on it. We also urge Christians to write to MPs, making them aware of the Committee’s deliberations, and urging them to vote against this Bill.”

ENDS

Editor’s Notes:
[1] Committee Hansard, third sitting, 28 January 2025, col. 104
[2] Committee Hansard, sixth sitting, 30 January 2025, col. 212
[3] Committee Hansard, second sitting, 28 January 2025, col. 60
[4] Committee Hansard, third sitting, 28 January 2025, cols 87-88
[5] Second Reading Hansard, 29 November 2024, col. 1017
[6] See shorturl.at/JczfT; Committee Hansard, third sitting, 28 January 2025, cols 87-88
[7] Committee Hansard, fifth sitting, 29 January 2025, cols 176 and 184
[8] Committee Hansard, third sitting, 28 January 2025, col. 73
[9] Committee Hansard, third sitting, 28 January 2025, col. 75
[10] Committee Hansard, third sitting, 28 January 2025, col. 67
[11] Committee Hansard, third sitting, 28 January 2025, cols 107-108