My assisted-dying bill safely solves a grave injustice, says Kim Leadbeater

MEMBERS OF BRITAIN’S Parliament will soon get their first opportunity in almost a decade to vote on extending the choices available to terminally ill people at the end of their lives. The second-reading debate on November 29th is an important occasion, although it will be far from the last word on the matter.

If my bill passes, it will be scrutinised by a representative committee of MPs, followed by detailed debates in both parliamentary houses, the Commons and the Lords. It is open to amendment and will only become law if both houses approve it.

If the bill is rejected, however, it is unlikely to be considered again for many years. The government maintains that it is for Parliament to decide through a private members’ bill, so there is no prospect of government ministers proposing their own bill. And if this law—widely acknowledged as the most thorough, well-drafted and safest piece of legislation on the subject ever debated in Parliament—should fail, no other MP is likely to have any prospect of success.

So the choice before MPs is between continuing the debate on my bill, with all the protections and safeguards it contains, or agreeing that the status quo is acceptable—and with it, in the words of the prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, “an injustice…trapped within our current arrangement”.

That injustice, which Sir Keir identified when he was director of public prosecutions (DPP) and voted to change when first elected as an MP, is profound. The 1961 Suicide Act makes it a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison to assist another person in taking their own life. Sir Keir, as DPP, issued guidance that there should be a presumption against prosecution when assistance was given purely on compassionate grounds. But he said, and I agree, that it is for Parliament, not prosecutors, to resolve the injustice.

I have heard so many heartbreaking stories from individuals and families affected by the current law. It is those voices that I have been encouraging MPs to listen to above all others, and not just the voices of those whose loved ones suffered an agonising death despite receiving the best palliative care. Although those accounts are particularly distressing, there are also the many husbands, wives, partners and children who have had to wave goodbye as a terminally ill person goes abroad, if they can afford it, to die alone. Or those who have had to deal with the trauma of a suicide by someone who felt they had no choice but to take matters into their own hands. In most cases these deaths take place before a person is ready to go, because they need to be well enough to act. They are denied the comfort of a final goodbye surrounded by love and support, and those left behind must add feelings of guilt and anguish to their grieving.

So the status quo is indefensible. My job has been to propose an alternative that addresses these injustices, offers the strongest possible protections and safeguards for a person seeking assistance to shorten their death, and is workable for the medical profession and the judiciary in particular.

We can learn from what has worked well in other jurisdictions and also see where things have gone in a direction we would not wish to follow. Under my bill no one would be eligible for assistance because they were disabled or mentally ill, or had an eating disorder, depression or anything other than a terminal illness. The courts, both domestic and European, have made clear that if Parliament votes for my very restrictive legislation, they would not and could not broaden its scope as has happened in Canada and elsewhere.

At every stage, a person requesting assistance must have a clear, settled and informed wish to end their life. Periods of reflection mean the process cannot be rushed and they can change their mind at any time. Two independent doctors and a High Court judge must be satisfied that a patient is eligible under the legislation, is mentally competent to express their decision and has not been coerced. I have had lengthy discussions with the British Medical Association, individual doctors and the judiciary at the highest level. They have reassured me that medical practitioners and judges are experienced in detecting coercive and abusive behaviour in difficult, even life-and-death circumstances.

This is not about ending a person’s life but allowing them to shorten their deaths. My bill would not create a new cohort of patients: those eligible will be in the last months of their lives and already receiving care and medication. Fears of a significant extra burden on National Health Service resources are unfounded. Nor would it detract from the provision of palliative care. The opposite is the case. The parliamentary Health and Social Care Select Committee found that elsewhere in the world, palliative care improved alongside the introduction of assisted dying. Here at home I am delighted that the debate around my bill has already renewed attention on palliative care and the hospice sector. We have started talking about death, something we have historically avoided. So I hope MPs will conclude that offering the possibility of a good death is a compassionate, just and ethical decision that rights serious wrongs and brings comfort to many of our fellow citizens—whether or not they elect to exercise that choice.■

Kim Leadbeater, a Member of Britain’s Parliament for the Labour Party, introduced the “Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill”, which will be debated in Parliament on November 29th.

To read an opposing view on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill by Danny Kruger MP, click here.