After a week of evidence, the worst fears about the so-called ‘assisted dying’ bill have been realised.
The ‘scrutiny’ of the Bill that could introduce assisted suicide to the UK has been highly controversial in its first week of meeting, with experts publicly describing the process as biased, unbalanced, and even a ‘shambles’.
This week was the first formal meeting of the committee tasked with preparing legislation that will allow doctors to kill patients if they say they want to end their life prematurely and have a terminal diagnosis. It listened to experts from across the world.
However a number of key witnesses on the potential harms of the Bill were excluded, and supporters of the legislation even tried to make the committee private so that the public could not hear what was said. When UK health professionals and experts raised concerns about the legislation and the way in which it has been introduced, they were interrupted and shut down. At the same time, the Bill’s cheerleader, Kim Leadbeater MP, invited a number of extreme pro-euthanasia witnesses who urged the committee to go further than the current plans and make it easier for patients to be killed.
The committee, whose members are disproportionately in favour of the Bill, initially voted to exclude evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and disability rights groups – until they were forced to give in due to significant pressure.
“Yesterday undermined the idea that a Parliamentary committee is an impartial process operating above the messy realities of politics,” wrote journalist Dan Hitchens after the first day of evidence. “To all appearances, Kim Leadbeater is playing to win.”
James Cleverly MP agreed: “This is not reassuring me that getting good legislation is the priority for the proponents of the bill,” he said. “I’ve seen this before. People become so focused on getting the win, they lose sight of the importance of getting a balance of views.”
Shocked experts
Many expressed serious concerns about why the committee did not want initially to hear important experts on the vital issues of coercion and capacity – an important issue if people are not to be pressured into euthanasia. Professor Professor Katherine Sleeman, a specialist in palliative care who is also a witness for the Committee, had said she was “stunned that the committee for a Bill that quite literally rewrites the Suicide Act of 1961 voted against inviting the Royal College of Psychiatrists to give oral evidence”.
“What a shambles!” wrote Nikki da Costa on X, who is a former director of legislative affairs in government and has been following the process closely. She has raised a number of key concerns, including that the Bill’s supporters are bypassing normal parliamentary procedure and will only evaluate how assisted suicide will harm the vulnerable after the committee finishes. “Undermines line-by-line scrutiny,” she wrote. “It would have helped identify issues and amendments. Now MPs can cherry-pick what evidence counts.”
Biased process
Danny Kruger MP, a key critic of the Bill, raised concerns about the people called to give evidence and the way in which Leadbeater has controlled the process. Kruger described the list of 60 witnesses as “unbalanced” and in favour of euthanasia. “Thirty-eight of them, as far as we can tell, are in favour of this Bill or in favour of the principle of assisted dying, versus only 20 who are opposed,” said the MP, the charity Right to Life reported. “There’s an inherent imbalance.”
A number of those watching closely described the process as biased. “Watching day 3 of the assisted suicide Bill committee hearing from witnesses,” wrote commentator Fleur Elizabeth on X. “They have now had 6 witnesses from Australia, all in favour of assisted suicide. This is not proper scrutiny. This is unbelievable bias.”
Cambridge assistant professor of law Philip Murray agreed: “Refusal to consider Canadian evidence. Refusal to hear from a range of AS-sceptical academics, lawyers, doctors and practitioners. There’s an astonishing confirmation bias baked into the committee.”
Experts were also dismissed when they gave evidence that demonstrated the problems and dangers of assisted suicide. Professor of psychiatry Allan House said after giving evidence: “Frustrating format and sense of minds made up. But interesting to be told by Kim Leadbeater that I don’t understand suicide in life limiting illness.”
For such a difficult subject with such potential dangers, the reduced scrutiny of a private members’ Bill has been described as inadequate “because we haven’t had a consultation, and the process of deliberation wasn’t transparent, as it never can be with a private members’ bill…” pointed out Baroness Kishwer Falkner, but was interrupted by Leadbeater.
The pro-euthanasia MP also interrupted Dr Sarah Cox, head of the Association for Palliative Medicine, when she raised concerns about how the debate regarding this Bill has raised unnecessary fears about death: “The stories that have been told have suggested to many members of the public that death is inevitably ugly, horrific and dramatic. Actually,
that has made many people fearful, and they have been emailing me and saying, ‘I am now afraid of dying, and I wasn’t before.’ They may then choose assisted dying before they need to because they have had a fear instilled in them that death is inevitably horrible and dramatic.”
The reality is that most people’s fears about death are not realised when they are cared for at the end of their lives by hospices, experts in pain relief, and pastoral support.
Inexperienced MPs
Despite the many strong arguments made against assisted suicide in principle, and particularly the quality of this particular Bill, MPs voted in favour at its second reading by 330 votes to 275 in November. Yet this was executed by many new MPs with little parliamentary experience. Despite their immaturity in Parliament, they felt confident enough to vote 63% in favour, while more experienced MPs voted 54% against.
It was also notable that the MPs who voted in favour represented more affluent constituencies. The committee includes Stephen Kinnock, Health Minister, and Sarah Sackman, Justice Minister, who both voted for the Bill. New parliamentarian Jake Richards MP is also a Labour member of the committee who supports the Bill, yet he spent the first day of evidence on his phone tweeting. Several other members of the committee who voted for it are also new to Parliament, such as Tom Gordon MP and Lewis Atkinson MP.
Here are just a small selection of the serious problems with the Bill that experts raised in the committee this week:
- Consultant psychiatrist Prof Gareth Owen raised a number of concerns, not least that the public is confused by the term ‘assisted dying’ that is used by euthanasia campaigners, and think that it refers to palliative care rather than causing death. Also that the courts and those implementing relevant legislation such as the Mental Capacity Act have no experience in dealing with those choosing to end their lives, which will be “uncharted territory”.
- Dr Rachel Clark said the “elephant in the room” is that NHS assessments of ‘mental capacity’ – whether someone is capable of making an informed decision about their health, which would be a vital factor in deciding if someone can choose suicide – are not done well in practice.
- Australian doctor, Dr Chloe Furst, who assists suicide herself, admits there are cases of people vomiting after ingesting assisted suicide drugs, that it can take many hours to die, and that doctors do not stay with the patient.
- Fazilet Hadi of Disability Rights UK gave a moving word of warning: “Parliamentarians, I know you want to look at the problems of individuals. But also, you have a responsibility to think about the society we want to create. I and other disabled people feel that we’ve already got an uphill struggle convincing people that our lives are of equal value, and that this Bill actually hinders us in that aspiration and ambition rather than helping us.”
- Dr Jamilla Hussain said the Bill serves a very small number of people yet will put a much larger group at risk: “The very existence of this Bill, it puts everyone who needs end of life care, it opens up a Pandora’s Box of risk.” She said that people from ethnic minorities believe they will be disproportionately affected.
- Dr Sarah Cox, president of the Association of Palliative Care, sharply contradicted claims from the Bill’s supporters that introducing euthanasia has led to improved end of life care in the countries it has been introduced. Instead, she said, it actually harmed the development of palliative care. About 80% of the Association’s members are opposed to legalising assisted suicide, and only 5% are in favour.
- Dr Cox also warned about the difficulty of discovering if someone is being pressured to end their lives, by relatives who want their money, for example. “You can’t always identify coercion,” she said. “After the event, there’s nobody to tell us about coercion, so it’s very difficult to monitor.”
- Giving a terminal diagnosis and knowing when someone will die is “not an exact science” the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Chris Whitty, warned. There is a “spread of uncertainty around it”. Therefore although the Bill’s supporters say it is just for those near the end of their lives, it is impossible to ensure this is the case.
- Royal College of Psychiatrists expert Dr Annabel Price told the committee that depression is common at the end of life, yet if it is treated well then the desire for suicide often changes.
- Prof Laura Hoyano said that there are technical problems with how the Bill defines the role of the High Court. “There are a number of unusual functions being attributed to the Court.”
According to the Institute for Government, the earliest possible date for report stage is Friday 25 April, so it is unlikely the committee will complete before then.
After such an extraordinary litany of serious concerns about the so-called “Assisted Dying” Bill, many commentators have been left astonished that it is being pushed through in this way, and are deeply concerned that its supporters are naive, ideologically committed, and ill-informed. “All the people I know who support assisted suicide are happy and educated,” said Lord Daniel Moylan on X. “Nobody would even think of coercing them into anything. And they seem to think they are typical. That’s their blindness to the real world.”
Heather Tomlinson is a freelance Christian writer. Find more of her work at https://heathertomlinson.substack.com/ or via X (twitter) @heathertomli
