This letter was sent to MPs as Committee scrutiny of the Bill comes to a close.
Dear MP,
As experts in different fields, we are acutely concerned about developments surrounding the Assisted Dying Bill at committee. We appreciate that parliamentarians, like individuals working in our own specialisms, have a range of views, and that people’s perspectives can be deeply personal. As well as considering the various moral, ethical, and social implications of ‘assisted dying’, it is incumbent upon MPs to ensure robust, workable legislation. In our view, a series of events at the committee stage cast doubt on the feasibility of the bill.
A planned sign-off on assisted dying cases by a High Court judge has been removed in favour of assisted dying panels. This change carries significant implications for already overburdened professionals, and many stakeholders feel that it is unworkable. In the lead up to Second Reading, parliament was assured of the High Court check. Indeed, it was repeatedly marketed as a key aspect of the bill that would ensure a greater level of safeguarding. The bill is an altogether different and less robust piece of legislation as a consequence of its being removed.
This is not our only concern about the legislation as it stands. The committee tasked with scrutinising the bill has a strong majority of bill supporters. This has meant that changes mooted by the bill’s sponsor have gone through with ease. Conversely, amendments put forward by more critical MPs to address concerns have been rejected, including amendments to exclude citizens with impaired judgment, people who are depressed, people with anorexia, people with intellectual disabilities, and people who may be being “unduly influenced”.
Media reports have suggested that some MPs who voted for Ms Leadbeater’s bill at Second Reading are re-thinking their stance. In our view, Kim Leadbeater’s bill is beset by issues that would translate into serious public harm, should it be passed into law. We would urge you to reflect on the issues above and vote down the bill at Third Reading.
We would also encourage you to consider what we feel to be unsolvable problems with any attempt to legislate in this area. Namely: the prospect of our most vulnerable citizens being subjected to subtle, and invisible coercion, and the postcode lottery that will inevitably emerge as citizens who lack sufficient health, social care, or welfare support opt for assisted death due to the inequality they face.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Miro Griffiths, Disability Studies Scholar at the University of Leeds; Allan House, emeritus professor of liaison psychiatry at the University of Leeds; Dr Mary Neal, expert in medical law and ethics, Reader in Law at the University of Strathclyde; Prof David G Smithard, Consultant in Acute Frailty and Visiting Professor at the University of Greenwich; Mark Taubert, professor of medicine at Cardiff University; Dr Julian C Hughes, honorary professor, Bristol Medical School; Professor David Paton, Chair of Industrial Economics at Nottingham University Business School; Dr Matthew Doré, palliative consultant, honorary secretary of the Association of Palliative Medicine; Dr Juliet Spiller, Consultant in palliative medicine, Edinburgh; Dr Sarah Grove, consultant in palliative medicine, Cambridge; Dr Ashley Frawley, sociologist and visiting researcher at the University of Kent; Dr Anni Donaldson, Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Strathclyde; Dr Mark Lee, Consultant in Specialist Palliative Care, Sunderland; Professor Colin Rees, Senior Consultant, Gastroenterology, North East England; Professor Peter Hindmarsh, emeritus professor of paediatric endocrinology at University College London; Prof John Wyatt, Emeritus Professor of Neonatal Paediatrics at University College London; Kevin Yuill, Emeritus Professor of History at the University of Sunderland; Dr Yuan Yi Zhu, Assistant Professor of International Relations and Law at Leiden University