Head of Public Policy Tim Dieppe comments on the dangerous decision to replace High Court judges with so-called ‘death panels’ as the committee stage progresses.
Dropping the requirement for a High Court judge
When Kim Leadbeater MP introduced her Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill to parliament in November last year, she made a big deal of stating that each case would require the sign off of a High Court judge. Many MPs were persuaded by this strong safeguard to vote for the bill at its second reading.
Leadbeater came under serious pressure regarding the involvement of judges from Sir James Munby, former President of the Family Division of the High Court of England and Wales, who wrote a withering critique of this provision highlighting multiple problems, not least that there are nowhere near enough judges to deal with the expected numbers of assisted suicide requests.
Replacing with a ‘death panel’
Leadbeater has now responded by amending her bill, replacing the requirement for a judge to sign off on each assisted suicide with a requirement for sign-off by a panel of experts, dubbed ‘death panels’ by the media. Leadbeater has denied that she did this because of the well-known lack of judicial capacity, instead arguing that she did this to strengthen the bill.
However, no reasonable person believes that the removal of judicial oversight has strengthened the safeguards of this bill, and given the emphasis she placed on this provision when introducing the bill, it is doubtful that she believes this herself.
No appeal if death is granted
The new ‘death panels’ will comprise a psychiatrist, a social worker, and a senior lawyer, all of whom will be voluntary members, and can therefore be expected to be fully supportive of assisted suicide in principle. This panel has no power to summon witnesses, no requirement for witnesses to speak on oath, has no power to see criminal records, and no people it is obliged to see in person.
If a proxy has made the request for assisted suicide, there is no requirement to question them. There is no requirement to inform the family or carers about the process, and no obligation to sit in public.
If permission to allow assisted suicide is granted, then there is no right of appeal for the family, carers, or any other interested person. If permission for assisted suicide is not granted, then the patient can appeal to a commissioner.
Doctors not required to ask why patient wants suicide
Additionally this week, an amendment proposing that a doctor should be required to as why a patient wants to commit suicide was rejected by the committee, with Rachel Hopkins MP arguing :“So what? Do I have to tell you why? It’s none of your business!” Any reasonable person can see that it is essential to ask why someone wants an assisted suicide: in order to assess whether there has been any coercion or perhaps financial considerations involved.
In debate about the rights of family members to input into the process, Jake Richards MP argued that the views of the family “are not relevant.” This belies just how sinister the bill is. There is not even a legal right for family members to provide any information to the panel, let alone to express their views on whether assisted suicide should be granted to their close relative.
Statement from Labour MPs
Twenty-six Labour MPs have signed a statement on the removal of High Court protections from the bill. The statement reads:
“The scrapping of High Court oversight for the assisted dying regime breaks the promises made by proponents of the bill, fundamentally weakens the protections for the vulnerable and shows just how haphazard this whole process has become.
“It does not increase judicial safeguards, but instead creates an unaccountable quango and to claim otherwise misrepresents what is being proposed.
“The new panel process can be held in private, won’t have the powers to make witnesses appear before it or to take evidence under oath. They will inevitably drain public services of vital front line staff without any idea how much this will cost the taxpayer or any assessment of its impact upon the vulnerable.”
The Times criticises the process
The Times newspaper was formerly supportive of changing the law on assisted suicide, but argued in its editorial this week that “The flawed assisted dying bill is moving too quickly.” It states: “Advocates and opponents of the bill concur it would be one of the most consequential acts of this parliament, transforming the relationship between doctor and patient, state and citizen.” Therefore, it requires the most thorough scrutiny. The article notes that replacing the judge with a panel “weakens a crucial safeguard” and points out that the committee has “also voted down amendments that would provide other additional safeguards.”
The article argues:
“There is nothing to be gained from a bad bill, certainly not one that legislates on life and death. Some MPs scrutinising the bill appear to believe their primary duty is to support Ms Leadbeater, rather than scrutinising and improving her proposals.”
It concludes:
“Any MP wavering about the assisted dying bill should side with caution and vote it down when it returns to the Commons. Sir Keir Starmer appears to favour changing the law but without explicit government support. The result so far has been a shoddy and unedifying process.”
This is exactly right.
Join us in praying for the bill to be defeated
It is encouraging to see significant criticism of the new ‘death panels’ in the media. We must ensure that MPs are fully aware of just how dangerous this bill has become. There is still time to write to your MP about this. Please also join us in praying that this bill is defeated when it comes back to parliament for its third reading after Easter.
