After every week of evidence, the worst fears concerning the so-called ‘assisted dying’ bill have been realised.
The ‘scrutiny’ of the Bill that would introduce assisted suicide to the UK has been highly controversial in its first week of meeting, with experts publicly describing the method as biased, unbalanced, and even a ‘shambles’.
This week was the primary formal meeting of the committee tasked with preparing laws that can allow doctors to kill patients in the event that they say they wish to end their life prematurely and have a terminal diagnosis. It listened to experts from internationally.
However a lot of key witnesses on the potential harms of the Bill were excluded, and supporters of the laws even tried to make the committee private in order that the general public couldn’t hear what was said. When UK health professionals and experts raised concerns concerning the laws and the way in which through which it has been introduced, they were interrupted and shut down. At the identical time, the Bill’s cheerleader, Kim Leadbeater MP, invited a lot of extreme pro-euthanasia witnesses who urged the committee to go further than the present 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 present in resulting from significant pressure.
“Yesterday undermined the concept a Parliamentary committee is an impartial process operating above the messy realities of politics,” wrote journalist Dan Hitchens after the primary day of evidence. “To all appearances, Kim Leadbeater is playing to win.”
James Cleverly MP agreed: “This will not be reassuring me that getting good laws is the priority for the proponents of the bill,” he said. “I’ve seen this before. People change into 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 didn’t want initially to listen to vital experts on the vital problems with coercion and capability – a very important issue if people aren’t to be pressured into euthanasia. Professor Professor Katherine Sleeman, a specialist in palliative care who can be 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 present oral evidence”.
“What a shambles!” wrote Nikki da Costa on X, who’s a former director of legislative affairs in government and has been following the method closely. She has raised a lot of key concerns, including that the Bill’s supporters are bypassing normal parliamentary procedure and can only evaluate how assisted suicide will harm the vulnerable after the committee finishes. “Undermines line-by-line scrutiny,” she wrote. “It would have helped discover issues and amendments. Now MPs can cherry-pick what evidence counts.”
Biased process
Danny Kruger MP, a key critic of the Bill, raised concerns concerning the people called to present evidence and the way in which through which Leadbeater has controlled the method. Kruger described the list of 60 witnesses as “unbalanced” and in favour of euthanasia. “Thirty-eight of them, so far as we are able to tell, are in favour of this Bill or in favour of the principle of assisted dying, versus only 20 who’re opposed,” said the MP, the charity Right to Life reported. “There’s an inherent imbalance.”
Quite a few those watching closely described the method 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 will not be proper scrutiny. This is unbelievable bias.”
Cambridge assistant professor of law Philip Murray agreed: “Refusal to think about Canadian evidence. Refusal to listen to from a variety of AS-sceptical academics, lawyers, doctors and practitioners. There’s an astonishing confirmation bias baked into the committee.”
Experts were also dismissed after they gave evidence that demonstrated the issues 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 do not understand suicide in life limiting illness.”
For such a difficult subject with such potential dangers, the reduced scrutiny of a non-public members’ Bill has been described as inadequate “because we have not had a consultation, and the technique of deliberation wasn’t transparent, because it never might be with a non-public members’ bill…” identified 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 controversy regarding this Bill has raised unnecessary fears about death: “The stories which were told have suggested to many members of the general public that death is inevitably ugly, horrific and dramatic. Actually,
that has made many individuals fearful, they usually have been emailing me and saying, ‘I’m now afraid of dying, and I wasn’t before.’ They may then select assisted dying before they should because they’ve had a fear instilled in them that death is inevitably horrible and dramatic.”
The reality is that almost all people’s fears about death aren’t realised after they are cared for at the tip of their lives by hospices, experts in pain relief, and pastoral support.
Inexperienced MPs
Despite the numerous strong arguments made against assisted suicide in principle, and particularly the standard 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 recent 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 each voted for the Bill. New parliamentarian Jake Richards MP can be a Labour member of the committee who supports the Bill, yet he spent the primary day of evidence on his phone tweeting. Several other members of the committee who voted for it are also recent to Parliament, resembling Tom Gordon MP and Lewis Atkinson MP.
Here are only a small choice of the intense problems with the Bill that experts raised within the committee this week:
- Consultant psychiatrist Prof Gareth Owen raised a variety of concerns, not least that the general public is confused by the term ‘assisted dying’ that’s utilized by euthanasia campaigners, and think that it refers to palliative care fairly than causing death. Also that the courts and people implementing relevant laws resembling the Mental Capacity Act haven’t any experience in coping with those selecting to finish their lives, which might be “uncharted territory”.
- Dr Rachel Clark said the “elephant within the room” is that NHS assessments of ‘mental capability’ – whether someone is capable of constructing an informed decision about their health, which could be an important think about deciding if someone can select suicide – aren’t done well in practice.
- Australian doctor, Dr Chloe Furst, who assists suicide herself, admits there are cases of individuals vomiting after ingesting assisted suicide drugs, that it may take many hours to die, and that doctors don’t stay with the patient.
- Fazilet Hadi of Disability Rights UK gave a moving word of warning: “Parliamentarians, I do know you need to take a look at the issues of people. But also, you might have a responsibility to think concerning the society we would like to create. I and other disabled people feel that we have already got an uphill struggle convincing those who our lives are of equal value, and that this Bill actually hinders us in that aspiration and ambition fairly than helping us.”
- Dr Jamilla Hussain said the Bill serves a really small number of individuals yet will put a much larger group in danger: “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 individuals from ethnic minorities imagine they might 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 within the countries it has been introduced. Instead, she said, it actually harmed the event of palliative care. About 80% of the Association’s members are against legalising assisted suicide, and only 5% are in favour.
- Dr Cox also warned concerning the difficulty of discovering if someone is being pressured to finish their lives, by relatives who want their money, for instance. “You cannot at all times discover coercion,” she said. “After the event, there’s no person to inform us about coercion, so it is very difficult to watch.”
- Giving a terminal diagnosis and knowing when someone will die is “not an actual 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’s only for those near the tip of their lives, it’s inconceivable to make sure that is the case.
- Royal College of Psychiatrists expert Dr Annabel Price told the committee that depression is common at the tip of life, yet whether it is treated well then the will 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 lot 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’s unlikely the committee will complete before then.
After such a unprecedented litany of great concerns concerning the so-called “Assisted Dying” Bill, many commentators have been left astonished that it’s being pushed through in this manner, and are deeply concerned that its supporters are naive, ideologically committed, and ill-informed. “All the people I do know who support assisted suicide are comfortable and educated,” said Lord Daniel Moylan on X. “Nobody would even consider coercing them into anything. And they appear to think they’re typical. That’s their blindness to the actual world.”
Heather Tomlinson is a contract Christian author. Find more of her work at https://heathertomlinson.substack.com/Â or via X (twitter) @heathertomli
