Fewer than 1,000 patients a year in England and Wales are expected to choose assisted dying if the law is passed, Labor MP Kim Leadbeater said, as she outlined her bill outlining the change.
But MPs who opposed the measure said they were deeply concerned about several components, including the fact that the proposed legislation did not stop doctors from suggesting assisted death as an option to patients.
MPs speaking on the panel expressed major doubts about whether the legislation would pass the first parliamentary stage in the House of Commons on November 29. Leadbeater said she would argue the case “literally every day” but that there were strong opinions on all sides.
“This is potentially one of the biggest things we will do as MPs in our careers,” Leadbeater said.
Conservative MP Kit Malthouse, who supports the bill, said he believed a significant number of MPs who voted against the measure in 2015 had changed their minds.
But Dr Peter Prinsley, a Labor MP and adviser, said he believed some of the new, younger MPs were hesitant. “I don’t feel as confident that this will pass as I did before I started these conversations,” he said.
“If you’re maybe a little younger and you haven’t encountered people dying in terrible circumstances, or taking their own lives or whatever, then maybe you’re a little bit removed from it. Everyone I speak to who has experienced things as they are today cannot understand why we haven’t made this change.”
Prinsley said he feared many MPs would abstain and urged them to vote – whatever they decided. “I don’t think that abstinence, which people might be tempted to do, is a neutral act. “I think people have to make a decision about this, and that’s what I encourage people to do,” he said.
Outlining the safeguards in the bill, Leadbeater and Labor peer Charlie Falconer said there was no legal risk of its scope being extended by the courts on human rights grounds, due to the strictly limited definitions in the bill and the failure to previous challenges in the bill. British and European courts.
Leadbeater said the number of people taking up this option would be low due to the strict criteria: assisted dying would only be offered to patients with a terminal diagnosis with a prognosis of less than six months. It would not be available to people who have longer to live and may be suffering, such as people in the early stages of motor neurone disease.
The procedure must be self-performed, Leadbeater said — in jurisdictions where doctors are allowed to help patients commit suicide, the rates are higher.
Leadbeater defended the fact that the bill does not ban doctors from discussing assisted dying with patients – which has caused controversy in jurisdictions such as Canada. Doctors are not obliged to talk to patients about it, the bill says, but must use their judgment.
The MP said the British Medical Association felt it was necessary for doctors to be able to “discuss the range of options available to patients”.
But Dr. David Nicholls, an adviser on the panel, said he would not be inclined to do so. “That’s not something I would necessarily (do),” he said. “The risk is that you don’t know what that patient is thinking.”
The bill, which would legalize assisted dying in England and Wales, contains safeguards including long prison sentences for coercion and powers for judges to cross-examine patients.
Two doctors and a High Court judge must sign off on any decision, which Leadbeater said would mean a full hearing with evidence from the patient and doctors – although in practice the judge would only check whether the conditions of the law were met, in instead of investigating motivation.
Lord Falconer, the former attorney general who is backing the bill, said he did not agree that the law could be challenged and expanded in court. He said it was possible that a case could be brought by disabled adults who could say the bill was discriminatory, but he believed such a challenge would have no chance of success.
“The English courts and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg have said time and time again that assisted dying is not something prescribed by the convention,” he said.
“It is up to the legislature to decide … they recognize that there are spiritual, religious and ethical approaches that differ from country to country. Such an application would be hopeless,” he said.