Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the assisted suicide bill, has been criticised for scrapping what was previously seen as certainly one of the important thing safeguards against abuse within the draft laws, namely the requirement that a High Court judge approve applications to undergo assisted suicide.
Critics of assisted suicide claim that many elderly, disabled or vulnerable people could also be pressured into ending their lives, either by relations, and even by the NHS itself, which is under tremendous budgetary pressures.
Before second reading of the bill in late November, Leadbeater claimed that her proposed bill had “the strictest safeguards anywhere on this planet”, essentially the most distinguished of which was the necessity for approval from a High Court judge.
Despite saying that she wouldn’t remove this safeguard, Leadbeater has actually done so, as a substitute proposing what critics have labelled “death panels” made up of a more junior judge, a social employee and a psychiatrist.
The removal of the High Court judge provision has spooked various MPs who previously voted on the bill, largely because they were assured by Leadbeater that the High Court judge provision could be the last word safeguard against abuse.
According to The Independent, 60 MPs who voted in favour of the law on the second reading in November did so due to High Court Judge provision. The bill passed second reading by only 55 votes.
One Lib Dem MP who voted in favour of the bill told The Times, “One of a very powerful things to me after I voted for the bill was the inclusion of a High Court judge and through the debate, that was used countless times to allay our concerns.
“I want to look my constituents in the attention and tell them that the safeguards are still there, and now I’m undecided I’m there.”
Catherine Robinson, spokesperson for Right to Life UK, condemned the bill, saying, “This dangerous bill would place hundreds of vulnerable people in danger in the approaching years whether it is passed.
“Just 28 MPs changing their stance to oppose the bill would ensure it’s defeated at Third Reading. We must now see this bill defeated.”
