When Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill passed its second reading in November last year, many MPs who voted for it said they had done so because it would receive further scrutiny – that changes would be made down the line to address concerns raised in the House of Commons debate. Events at the committee stage in subsequent months show that their hopes for this outcome were in vain.
The public bill committee asked to scrutinise Ms Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was always going to come up short. A clear majority of MPs on the committee – 15 to 8 – are known supporters of assisted suicide who wish to see the bill pass. Given the particulars of the private member’s bill process, Ms Leadbeater herself also wields significant influence. As many critics have noted, a member’s bill was not the right vehicle for a proposal of this kind.
Hundreds of amendments have been laid at committee to address a plethora of concerns. As you might have guessed on a committee stacked in favour of the bill, many have been rejected. When you look at the focus of some of these amendments, it’s shocking to consider that they have been. Bill proponents appear to want parliament to have blind trust that it will all work out.
Last month, pro-assisted suicide MPs voted down amendments to prevent access by people who are depressed; access by those who might be being ‘unduly influenced’; access by people experiencing severe inequality such as homelessness; and require that every person enquiring about assisted suicide is appraised of their palliative care options.
Today, MPs rejected an amendment to prevent the option of assisted suicide being raised with children; amendments to carve out protections for people with Down’s Syndrome, autism, and intellectual disabilities; an amendment to protect people who may have pre-existing suicidal risk factors; an amendment to require a 28-day cooling off period before a conversation about assisted suicide can happen; and an amendment to require doctors to discuss uncertainties about diagnosis and prognosis with patients (data has shown that that 1 in 5 people given six months to live are still alive three years later).
At every juncture, Ms Leadbeater and her allies seem determined to oppose barriers to accessing assisted suicide, or caveats for vulnerable groups. In fact, they will soon vote on a change that could achieve the opposite effect, allowing access by people a neuro-degenerative condition who are expected to have 12 months to live. At present, the bill only covers people with a 6-month prognosis. The slippery slope appears to have begun before parliament has even given a final decision on assisted suicide.
Though all of this is troubling, it’s not surprising. Campaigners for assisted suicide – the people really pulling Kim Leadbeater’s strings – value “autonomy” above all else. They do not believe that a person being depressed, disabled, underage, or marginalised should be protected from a law that would enable them to end their life. They just ‘want ‘assisted dying’ to be legal, regardless of its impact. If the law does change, they’ll push for its boundaries to be broadened – for access to be made easier, faster, and wider.
The next substantive vote on this bill will be at third reading in the Commons. Parliamentary convention means the amendments cited above cannot be laid again. MPs who are nervous about a change in the law who want to protect the vulnerable have just one option: they must reject this dangerous bill.