Head of Public Policy Tim Dieppe comments on the committee’s continued rejections of amendments to the assisted suicide bill that would make it safer
This week’s debates in the committee scrutinising Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill demonstrated just how big an impact on society this bill will have.
This follows last week, when the requirement for a High Court Judge to sign off on requests for assisted suicide was replaced with ‘death panels’ from which there is no appeal if death is granted.
And once again, the bill’s supporters blocked even more efforts to make the bill safer.
Hospices must facilitate assisted suicide
Rachell Maskell MP proposed an amendment which would allow hospices to opt out of facilitating assisted suicide.
Danny Kruger MP argued that hospice owners should be able to make their hospice “a safe space in which there will not be state-assisted suicide.” He suggested that many residents would want this kind of assurance from a hospice.
Concerns were also raised about people leaving the hospice sector if they are forced to facilitate assisted suicide. There were also suggestions that public funding could be at risk if a hospice refuses to facilitate assisted suicide.
Nevertheless, the amendment was rejected by the committee.
Professor Katherine Sleeman tweeted in response that she had spoken to a consultant at a large hospice who had told her that the whole consultant body of the hospice has decided to leave en masse if that hospice ‘opts in’ to providing assisted suicide. She described the lack of opt out for hospices as “a disaster.”
The committee was told in January by Sarah Cox, president of the Association for Palliative Medicine (APM) that two in five APM members said: “If assisted dying was implemented within their organisation, they would have to leave.” She said there is already a staffing crisis in palliative care and that the APM was very concerned about the bill. The committee disregarded this important evidence.
Institutional opt-outs are common in other jurisdictions where assisted suicide is legal. This committee wasn’t interested. Instead, it was quite hostile to allowing institutional opt-out. This will have very significant implications for hospices across the country, many of which are already under significant pressure. The committee didn’t seem to care.
Lethal drugs do not have to be approved
Astonishingly, the committee voted against an amendment requiring the lethal drugs to be approved by the Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). All other drugs must be approved by this agency.
Rajiv Shah saw the irony here, pointing out in a tweet that if you’re terminally ill and you want to try an experimental drug which early studies have shown could save your life, you will have to wait for that drug to be approved by the MHRA. If, on the other hand, you are terminally ill and want to use an experimental drug to end your life then there is no need for MHRA approval.
The committee also rejected an amendment saying that the Health Secretary can only approve a lethal drug for use if he/she is “reasonably of the opinion that there is a scientific consensus that this drug or combination of drugs is effective at ending someone’s life without causing pain.”
The committee seem unconcerned about causing pain at the end of life, even though this is a reason for legalising assisted suicide in the first place.
It also rejected an amendment requiring doctors to make a detailed report on any drug complications, and another amendment requiring the Health Secretary to make regulations about failed drug procedures, as well as an amendment requiring parliament to vote on choices of lethal drugs based on a report about their effects and possible complications.
It seems the committee is intent on enabling patients to be poisoned without worrying about ensuring that this is done safely or with proper scrutiny or regulation.
Once again, the leaders of this bill are proving that assisted suicide is not healthcare – it is completely at odds with the principles of medicine.
NHS duty to improve health altered
NHS legislation preserved since 1946 says that the government has a duty to improve the physical and mental health of its people and to prevent, diagnose and treat physical and mental illness.
In order to facilitate assisted suicide, this legislation will have to be changed. Kim Leadbeater has tabled an amendment to this legislation. This will mean that the government will be able to facilitate ending lives.
Former Director of Legislative Affairs at No. 10, Nikki da Costa described the legislation for the NHS as “The most consequential act of any Labour Government, arguably of any Government – undone by a private members bill and an MP elected in 2021.”
She also noted that there is no limit to the amendment, nor a regulatory regime. Details will come later and cannot be scrutinised now.
Furthermore, these amendments were tabled two minutes before the deadline for further amendments, meaning that there is no opportunity for other MPs to table amendments in response. These are complex amendments which take time to draft.
MPs are playing games with the parliamentary system on a matter of life and death.
Doctors cannot opt out of the process
Danny Kruger proposed a motion that doctor should be able to avoid participation in any part of the assisted suicide process. This amendment too was rejected.
Doctors will therefore be forced to refer a patient to another doctor if they request assisted suicide, even if this goes against the conscience of the doctor and his or her medically informed opinion of what is best for the patient.
More amendments rejected
Other amendments rejected by the committee would have:
- Required the doctor to be in the same room as the patient when assisted suicide takes place
- Required the doctor not to do anything to kill the patient if the assisted suicide fails
- Required doctors to comply with codes of practice
This latter point is crucial. Kim Leadbeater and her pro-assisted suicide colleagues are claiming that the details will be covered in codes of practice – which are inadequate safeguards because they are so easy to change without parliamentary oversight.
But doctors won’t even be required to comply with those codes of practice!
They seem to be making assisted suicide a free-for-all.
Rushed process
The committee continued to meet till after 9:30pm this week as Kim Leadbeater is keen to get the bill progressed. This meant long days for committee members.
Naz Shah MP, who is opposed to the bill, was forced to leave the committee as her hearing aids need recharging after 15 hours of use. She had raised this with members of the committee and was frustrated that no concession was made for her disability.
One amendment that was accepted was an amendment requiring the doctor at the last moment before the drugs are administered to inform the patient that they can change their mind. This is a helpful additional safeguard, but pales into insignificance relative to what the committee rejected this week.
Committee has damaged support for the bill
Journalist Robert Colville said that he has “yet to see anyone say that the committee stage has strengthened their support for the assisted dying bill”, but that there was an awful lot in the other direction.
This is the positive side of the stacked committee’s behaviour.
Any MPs watching what has been happening can see how biased and disregarding of consciences and safeguards the committee has been.
We expect the crucial third reading to take place on 25 April.
This is really the last chance to kill the bill.
Please write to your MP making them aware of what has happened in committee and urging them to vote against the bill at third reading.
And please commit to joining us outside Parliament on the day of the vote, asking MPs to reject this bill.
