Everywhere assisted dying is introduced, the safeguards never prove effective

The emotion of watching the progress of the assisted dying Bill through Parliament will differ for every person watching it. For some, it will elicit grief or perhaps fear. For others, hope. For me, watching from afar, it's déjà vu.
Before assisted dying was legalised in New Zealand three and a half years ago, it was me speaking in Parliament against its passage. And the debate here is all too spookily reminiscent of what we saw.
We, like British MPs, were promised that the eligibility criteria would be tight and that claims of a slippery slope were a 'fallacy'.
My work on this issue began when I chaired the New Zealand Parliament's Health Committee inquiry into assisted dying. It was the largest inquiry ever undertaken by the New Zealand parliament and was our nation's most detailed public discussion on this topic.
Again and again, I asked questions and probed for the details of how proposed safeguards, which promised to ensure no mistakes were made, would in fact do so. Each time, I was assured that the laws would function to ensure horror cases simply could not occur, that the criteria would never be relaxed, and that this law would be the safest in the world.
Listening now to the UK debate, the lines from supporters here are redolent of what I heard back then. Kim Leadbeater, were it not for her broad Yorkshire tones, could well play a Kiwi parliamentarian, breezily dismissing the concerns voiced by my Committee and me.
And, if the language matches closely, the proposed 'safeguards' are near-identical. Central to the safeguards in the Kiwi law was the introduction of a body called: 'The End of Life Review Committee'. It broadly mirrors Leadbeater's proposals for a supervisory review body following the removal of the High Court safeguard.
In New Zealand, three experts – two health practitioners and one medical ethicist – sit on this Committee. Their role was to review assisted deaths and to scrutinise complex cases where something may have gone wrong. But things did not work out as they were supposed to.
One of the Committee's original members resigned over serious concerns about its ability to supervise the implementation of assisted suicide and euthanasia. Another member was pushed out, it is thought, because she was raising too many concerns about the operation of the new law. Two out of three members were gone.
Both subsequently went public and stated that the Committee's oversight of the law was so limited that wrongful deaths could go undetected. They said they were 'extremely concerned' about how little information they received relating to patients' deaths, leading to them feeling 'constrained to the point of irrelevance'.
In one deeply troubling case, the Review Committee was able to establish that a dementia patient, who did not speak English, was approved for assisted dying despite not having an interpreter present for their assessment.
The New Zealand experience is closely mirrored in every country where similar laws have been introduced in recent years. In our Antipodean neighbour, Australia, several states have legalised assisted dying in the last few years. Queensland's law was said to have taken extra time to progress through parliament to make sure the law would guarantee that every death was 'truly voluntary', 'without coercion', and with the strictest safeguards.
In fact, patients there have killed themselves with others' drugs and, in a scathing judgement, a coroner ruled that it was in fact 'not a well-considered law', but rather had 'inadequate' safeguards that had taken just '107 days to be exposed'. In another case, a woman appeared in court last week, charged with her husband's murder, having admitted to her family that she had administered him three lethal doses of drugs after he told doctors he wanted to 'go on' rather than die via assisted dying. She denies murder, and the case continues.
Meanwhile, Oregon – one of the first jurisdictions to legalise assisted dying – has seen its eligibility criteria stretched to include patients with anorexia, diabetes, or arthritis. Around half of those opting for assisted suicide now cite feeling like a 'burden' on others as a motivating factor.
None of the parliamentarians voting for those laws did so believing that they were dangerous. In New Zealand, my colleagues certainly did not do so. They had repeatedly been assured that the safeguards were absolute, inviolable, and complete.
But, if the experience of those who have passed these laws is anything to go by, British parliamentarians should think very carefully before passing the assisted dying Bill. Safeguards so often promised have proven so rarely effective.
If British MPs are not certain that they will work here, my urgent advice, having seen this play out before, would be to reject this Bill today.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Sun

11 minutes ago

• The Sun

Three ways to pack your fridge with fresh vegetables for as long as possible

A SORTED fridge can help save you money. It won't just look tidy, it will cut down on food waste which is bad for your purse and for the planet. With a bit of organisation, you can save food from going off, see what needs to be eaten and be inspired to freshen up your meals. GET IN THE ZONE: If you use each part of the fridge in the right way, you'll keep food fresher for longer. Keep ready-to-eat foods on the top shelf, from leftovers to open jars. The middle shelf is perfect for milk, cheese and yoghurt. While on the bottom shelf, store raw meat and fish. Put a tray underneath to catch any dips. Keep fruit and veg in the salad drawers. If you can adjust the humidity, go high for leafy greens and low for fruit. The fridge door is warmer, so is perfect for sauces and fruit juice. MIX AND MATCH: Some fruit and vegetables give off high levels of the natural ripening chemical ethylene, which means they can spoil produce placed nearby. Sophie Trueman from food waste campaign Too Good To Go, says: 'Apples are a major culprit along with pears, bananas, mangoes, plums and nectarines, so it's always best to try and store fruits like these away from each other so they ripen at a steadier pace.' Not all fruits and vegetables are sensitive to ethylene. Cherries, pineapples, grapefruit and blueberries can all be safely stored together or next to those that produce this gas. BERRY GOOD IDEAS: Store berries in the fridge as soon as buying them. Ideally, keep them in a breathable container lined with kitchen roll to absorb excess moisture. You can also line your salad drawer with paper towel to stop things getting soggy. Wrapping vegetables like broccoli, cabbage, green beans and carrots in foil will keep them crisper for longer. Keep salads and herbs away from the back of the fridge, where they could freeze and turn to mush. All prices on page correct at time of going to press. Deals and offers subject to availability 7 Deal of the day 7 SHIELD yourself from the sun with the 3m Elements cantilever parasol from Dunelm, down from £79 to £55.30. Cheap treat KEEP your youthful good looks with the Bulldog Age Defence Moisturiser, down from £9 to £6 at Boots. Top swap 7 7 A RETRO fan is a cool way to escape the heat. Try the grey and chrome one from Dunelm, £29, or give the Swan 8-in clock fan from a whirl, £20.99. SAVE: £8.01 Shop & save MAKE light work of laundry with the Russell Hobbs supreme steam iron, down from £49.99 to £24.99 at SAVE: £25 Hot right now IF you're called Greg or Gail, you can get a free strawberry cheesecake doughnut at a Wenzel's bakery until next Friday. PLAY NOW TO WIN £200 7 JOIN thousands of readers taking part in The Sun Raffle. Every month we're giving away £100 to 250 lucky readers - whether you're saving up or just in need of some extra cash, The Sun could have you covered. Every Sun Savers code entered equals one Raffle ticket. The more codes you enter, the more tickets you'll earn and the more chance you will have of winning!

The Independent

13 minutes ago

• The Independent

MPs voting to legalise assisted dying is a momentous day for choice

Many of the great advances of liberal social legislation have been made in the form of bills promoted by backbench MPs under a benign Labour government. The abolition of the death penalty in 1965, by a bill sponsored by Sydney Silverman; the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967, by a bill from Leo Abse; the Abortion Act 1967, by a bill from David Steel; and the Divorce Reform Act 1969, which followed another private member's bill by Abse. To this roll call of liberal reform, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act is now likely to be added, and Kim Leadbeater's name will join those of her illustrious predecessors. In a week in which the House of Commons has also voted to decriminalise abortion, it is good to see that progress is still being made towards giving citizens more choice in how they live their lives – including in today's case how they end them. This is a difficult subject, and, as with any step forward to a more liberal society, there are those who object that the change breaches a fundamental moral principle. We understand that there are some difficult moral issues in assisted dying, but we do not accept that today's vote in the Commons crosses some kind of Rubicon. The Independent 's starting point is that it cannot be right to treat as criminal someone who is terminally ill and who wants to decide the time and manner of their death – or the people who assist them in this decision. The only question, it seems to us, is whether the protection against pressure being put on someone to end their life was strong enough. There were those MPs who argued today that those protections can never be 100 per cent secure, and it may be that in no part of life can people be absolutely protected from malign actors. But the protections in the bill are as good as they can be. They have been significantly strengthened since the bill was first published. The main change that Ms Leadbeater has made to the bill has been to replace a High Court judge with a panel of a lawyer, a social worker and a psychiatrist as the second line of defence after two doctors have approved a patient's decision. This is a better arrangement, drawing on a wider range of expertise. There remain concerns about the bill. One of the objections we take most seriously is from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which says, among other things, that 'there are not enough consultant psychiatrists to do what the bill asks'. This is a question of whether the provisions of the bill will be adequately resourced, which is related to the worry expressed by Wes Streeting, the health and social care secretary, who is opposed to the bill on the grounds that end-of-life care in the NHS is under-resourced as it is. The Independent 's view, however, is that the issue of resources should not be a reason for blocking the bill. If, for example, there is a shortage of psychiatrists, it would be wrong to deny the right to an assisted death altogether just because it cannot be offered to all. After all, the current situation is that those with means can travel to Switzerland to take advantage of the law there, as Mary Dejevsky writes in a moving account of her husband's death. This bill will make that choice available to more people in England and Wales, and under rather stricter rules than apply in Switzerland. We welcome today's decision by the House of Commons. It was decisive, although we wish it could have been more so, because this is the kind of change that benefits from a wide consensus. We urge the House of Lords to take its role seriously as a revising chamber. Peers should not seek to block the bill, or to pass amendments designed to render it ineffective. Instead, they should look at those aspects of the bill that are most contentious and seek to improve the legislation if at all possible. Ultimately, however, the upper house should respect the democratic mandate of the Commons and pass this law, the most significant social policy shift by a private member's bill since abortion was legalised in 1967, to allow more people to make their own decisions about their lives and how to end them.

The Sun

15 minutes ago

• The Sun

Palestine Action ‘to be BANNED' like terror group after they broke into RAF Brize Norton & vandalised 2 planes

PALESTINE Action is set to be "proscribed" and "branded a terror group" by the home secretary in the coming weeks, according to the BBC. Activists from the pro-Palestinian group broke into RAF Brize Norton overnight in a video shared online by members. Now, Yvette Cooper is preparing a written statement before Parliament on Monday - which if passed will make becoming a member of the group illegal, reports the BBC. It will then need to be enacted through new legislation. Proscription is used to ban terror groups in the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned the attack as "disgraceful" today. The MoD earlier slammed the "vandalism of Royal Air Force assets" in a scathing statement. Brize Norton is the RAF's largest airbase and home to more than 6,000 military and civilian personnel as well as the UK's largest military aircraft. The MoD has slammed the "vandalism of Royal Air Force assets" in a scathing statement. A spokeswoman for the ministry said: "Our armed forces represent the very best of Britain. "They put their lives on the line for us, and their display of duty, dedication and selfless personal sacrifice are an inspiration to us all. "It is our responsibility to support those who defend us." 1