11 hours ago
Last chance for MPs to think again on assisted dying
The assisted dying bill has split voters and MPs
TOLGA AKMEN/EPA
I n November, when the assisted dying bill had its second reading in the House of Commons, its sponsor Kim Leadbeater reassured fellow MPs that a vote in favour was only 'to continue the debate' and ' to subject the bill to line-by-line scrutiny'. That conversation — which permitted wavering MPs to interrogate their decision further — is drawing to a close. Today, MPs will vote on the third and final reading of the bill, after which it could go to the House of Lords. What has emerged from that 'line-by-line scrutiny', however, has chilled many legislators and observers to the core.
Firstly, there is the nature of the scrutiny itself. Because this was not a government bill, but a private member's one, Ms Leadbeater was able to handpick the committee and exercise control over the witnesses called. It did not boost confidence in an impartial process. Indeed, four Labour MPs raised concerns that the committee's evidence was 'weighted towards those who were known to be supportive of the bill'.
Of eight witnesses called from foreign jurisdictions with an assisted dying law, for example, not one was critical of how the legislation had played out — despite there being numerous experts with misgivings, such as Theo Boer of the Dutch Health Council. Formerly pro-euthanasia, he became horrified by the steady expansion of the system and its eligibility from what was first intended. Although the UK bill is being sold on the basis that it is strictly limited to those with a terminal diagnosis of less than six months, Mr Boer has warned that 'our safeguards were presented that way too.' In the Netherlands, assisted dying provision now includes children over 12 years old and those with psychiatric disorders.
If the passage of this bill has been distinguished by procedural ruthlessness, that has been matched only by its intellectual woolliness. The absence of tight, ethical safeguards to protect the vulnerable — in particular those with mental health problems — has caused deep anxiety in organisations at the sharp end of patient care: the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Association for Palliative Medicine, and the Royal College of Physicians have all raised serious concerns.
Tellingly, the two ministers whose departments would be most involved in the bill's implementation, the health secretary Wes Streeting and the justice secretary Shabana Mahmood, are both opposed. Many safeguarding amendments have been shrugged aside. MPs who vote yes on Friday will be voting to permit doctors to raise the subject of ending a patient's life, including with people who have learning disabilities. The door is open for private contractors to get involved in running the service with no transparency obligations or cap on profits. And as the former prime minister Gordon Brown argues, the legal right to assisted dying would not be matched by any equivalent right to high-quality palliative care, making a cruel nonsense of real choice for many of those in extremis.
Sir Keir Starmer has repeated his support for the principle of the bill, while distancing himself from the legislation. But should its proposals take full effect in 2029 as stipulated, close to the next general election, troubled voters who consider it a deal-breaker will inevitably connect it to the prime minister. There are many others, too, who back assisted dying in good faith, but this flawed bill delivers a far greater number of dangers than it does solutions. Before it is too late, its parliamentary supporters can, and must, think again.
