THE Archbishop of York has warned that assisted dying could “result in coercion of vulnerable people in places where palliative care isn’t available and can’t be afforded, which can result in unintended consequences”.
The Archbishop’s intervention got here after Senedd Cymru, the Welsh Parliament, voted on Tuesday to provide its consent to the Westminster Parliament’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, paving the best way for assisted suicide to be offered through NHS Wales should the laws turn into law.
Speaking within the House of Lords on Friday, Archbishop Cottrell asked Lord Falconer, the Labour peer who’s sponsoring the Bill, for a proof over the “coercion” issues, saying: “I entirely accept that those that are proposing the Bill don’t propose it for the rationale of attempting to get monetary savings. I also entirely accept the will from everyone on this House for better-funded palliative care.
“However, I want something to be explained. Taken that palliative care is insufficient and underfunded, and brought that there are huge regional variations, what I don’t understand is the noble and learned Lord’s confidence that this can not result in coercion of vulnerable people in places where palliative care isn’t available and can’t be afforded, which can result in unintended consequences. I entirely accept that he doesn’t want those consequences either, but I ask him to provide me some confidence, if he can, that this can not follow.”
Lord Falconer, who has said that the Bill has not reached “the top of the road” following speculation that point was running out for it to pass, with only a number of more days for debating within the Upper House, responded that he would try to provide the Archbishop “confidence”.
“First, decisions about treatment for the time being incessantly need to be made within the context of what everybody on this Committee would think was inadequate palliative care. There is scope for coercion there with no safeguards. Secondly, people have the power to go abroad to get an assisted death, and there may be scope for coercion there.
“In each those situations, there aren’t any safeguards whatever. The landscape by which those selections are made, whether about continuing other treatment or about going to Switzerland, has absolutely no protections whatever. This Bill provides five levels of protection. I’m completely satisfied that this can be a safer system than the present law, and I very much hope that offers the Most Reverend Primate confidence that the Bill is the correct thing to do.”
Lord Falconer continued: “On the funding of palliative care, I very much hope that the Government and other people will provide more cash for palliative care. The experience in lots of countries is that the introduction of an assisted dying Bill results in a rise in the quantity of palliative care, because people debate and take into consideration the way you die.
“I hope those things put the Most Reverend Primate’s mind at rest. The risk for coercion is already there, and this provides safeguards. I hope the introduction of the Bill will produce more cash for palliative care, but unfortunately I cannot give the Most Reverend Primate any guarantees of that.”
Speaking in the identical debate, the previous Bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries, raised the proven fact that, under the proposed Bill, the requirement for a High Court judge to approve assisted dying applications had been replaced by that of a multidisciplinary assisted-dying review panel, including a psychiatrist and a social employee.
“The noble and learned Lord talks about putting it to rest, but for a lot of us that issue isn’t at rest,” he said. “I got the impression he was still serious about its possible value [of a judge] — so, so far as a lot of us are concerned, it has not been put to rest.”
Lord Falconer responded: “I used to be pretty clear in my remarks that I favoured the panel process. When I say that it has been laid to rest, I accept that the House may take a special view from me, which I might completely respect.
“To cope with that, obviously there could be a vote on Report once we would determine whether we wanted the panel or the court process. I hope the difficulty has been laid to rest, but when it has not, and I lose, so be it. I earnestly hope that we get there and reach a call in relation to it.”
