Supported the dying bill’s “strict” safeguards, including long prison terms for coercion
A landmark bill to legalize assisted dying will provide tough safeguards including long prison terms for coercion and powers for judges to cross-examine patients.
Labor MP Kim Leadbeater said she believed she had proposed “the best possible legislation” but warned hesitant MPs that parliament might not get the chance to vote on the issue again for another decade.
She promised it would include the “strongest protections and safeguards of any legislation in the world,” amid growing concerns from some lawmakers about the potential for mission creep and coercion.
The bill is expected to run to 40 pages – believed to be one of the longest private members’ bills ever – and Leadbeater will emphasize to colleagues in the coming days that the bill has been the subject of extensive consultation.
But critics in parliament have raised alarm over the handling of the bill, which has little time for debate, with many concerned about the potential for undue pressure and the risk of widening the bill’s scope under legal challenges.
Leadbeater’s bill will set out the details for the first time on Monday:
Patients must be over 18 years of age, have the mental capacity to make an end-of-life choice, be terminally ill and expected to die within six months
They must express a ‘clear, firm and informed’ wish in two separate witness statements
Two independent doctors must be satisfied that the person is eligible
The application must be approved by a Supreme Court judge, who will hear at least one of the doctors and may question the patient or anyone else involved
Medications must be self-administered and physicians may not assist
Coercion against a patient would be a criminal offense punishable by up to fourteen years in prison
However, some critics of the bill have said there are still questions about the safeguards – and have said there should be provisions against “doctor shopping” if patients don’t get the answer they want from their first choice of doctor.
They also expect to ask questions about whether the six-month prognosis includes those who refuse treatment and whether doctors make any assumptions about mental capacity. An even harsher approach would require a patient to be cross-examined in court by a lawyer, who will present the case to a judge for refusing the procedure.
Leadbeater said the November 29 vote would only be the first step and would allow the bill to be further examined at later stages.
Responding to criticism about the lack of research into the bill, Leadbeater said it had been a “thorough and robust process” involving medical and legal experts, the palliative care and hospice sectors, disability rights activists and faith leaders. people who have personal experience of seeing a loved one die in difficult circumstances.
She said MPs had another three weeks to consider the bill before the debate, adding: “I hope MPs will agree with me that we can provide the safest choice for those who need it at the end want from their lives, while at the same time working to make our already excellent palliative care even better and protect the rights of people with disabilities, mental illness and other challenges to receive all the support and care they need throughout their lives she said.
The pro-assisted dying side in parliament has an organized system, with designated MPs managing the figures for each parliamentary intake. Those who have seen the latest numbers say there are a number of members who they expect will make final decisions within days of seeing the bill.
“For some it is a principle not to say yes until they have seen the legislation,” said one supportive MP.
MPs concerned about the process and the potential expansion of the scope of the legislation are this week invited to meet Dr Sally Talbot, one of the architects of assisted dying in Western Australia and currently a member of the panel is engaged in revising the law.
The opponents have organized events with a number of disabled MPs opposed to the changes, including peer Tanni Grey-Thompson and Pam Duncan-Glancy, a Scottish Labor MSP, as well as academics and lawyers concerned about the process.
At least 100 Labor MPs are believed to be undecided and both parties say the figures are truly unknown, with a significant number refusing to attend either side’s parliamentary events.
Some said the arguments were becoming increasingly bitter privately and in parliament – with deep resentment from many of the MPs opposed to the change being lumped in with religious opponents who are also campaigning against abortion.
“We don’t want this to turn into a culture war,” said one Labor MP who opposes the change.
While there are high-profile ministers, including Health Minister Wes Streeting and Justice Minister Shabana Mahmood, who are against the change in the law, MPs have been told that the majority of Cabinet intends to support the change, although they have been warned not to get too involved in the debate about free voting.
However, there are some influential names still undecided, including the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, and the home secretary, Yvette Cooper.
Sarah Wootton of Dignity in Dying, which is campaigning for a change in the law, said the bill was “the strongest proposal parliament has ever considered on improving choice and protection for dying people”.
It was “a practical British model for law change that will end the cruel and dangerous status quo while introducing new safety measures,” she added.
“Three quarters of the public agree this is the right law for Britain, regardless of where they live or who they vote for. Many have experienced the devastating consequences of banning this option: witnessing prolonged, traumatic deaths despite the best care, or terminally ill relatives taking matters into their own hands, at home or abroad.”
Gordon Macdonald of Care Not Killing, who opposes the legislation, said the bill was “rushed through with indecent haste and ignores the deep-seated problems in Britain’s broken and patchy palliative care system and the crisis in social care”.