Inset image – Wikimedia Commons: Official portrait of Kim Leadbeater MP crop 2, 2024
Amid a growing chorus of concern over the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, on Friday 20 June, the House of Commons is set to decide whether assisted suicide will be legalised in England and Wales. Once the Bill has had its Third Reading next Friday, it will move to the House of Lords. After that, MPs will only have the opportunity to vote on amendments passed by the Lords.
Having completed the second day of the Bill’s Report Stage, its supporters managed to vote down attempts to strengthen its safeguards. An amendment aimed at tightening control of how assisted suicide “services” are advertised was rejected by 254 votes to 233. A measure to ensure that medical professionals don’t raise the option of assisted suicide with a patient who has not requested it was also defeated by 256 votes to 230.
In a tense five-hour debate, MPs from all sides of the House laid out serious criticisms of the wording of the Bill and how it has been managed. Simon Hoare the MP for North Dorset, voiced concern that the strategy of the Bill’s supporters was to: “Keep things vague, do not make anything too real or tangible, and do not confront what this will mean day-to-day.” He said:
“It is almost six months to the day since the Bill was introduced and still I think it is best described as skeletal. We have been told time and again by the honourable Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) and the Minister how busy officials have been looking at the practicalities of the Bill and how to operationalise it and make it workable. Yet this House is kept in the dark on what Ministers intend. Indeed, the honourable and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) said in his earlier contribution that his understanding was that the honourable Lady was still prepared to work with colleagues to perfect the Bill. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are on the second day of the Report stage and we could easily fall to Third Reading today. The time for that evolutionary conversation is long past. The time for detailed clarification is now. The Bill remains skeletal.”
Despite voicing his support for a series of amendments designed to strengthen safeguards, Mr Hoare concluded that: “in trying to improve the Bill, they are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.”
MPs from Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland raised questions over the constitutional implications of the Bill and the unintended consequences for healthcare professionals outside England while Dr Ben Spencer argued that:
“…the fundamental problem with the Bill is that it has a complete blind spot for those people who are highly vulnerable. It is scandalous that we have got to this point and are still having a debate about the core concepts.”
Other MPs also sought to highlight the particular difficulties faced by ethnic minorities or those with physical or mental disabilities. Several MPs insisted that they must also be a voice for those who cannot advocate for themselves. John Grady, MP for Glasgow East drew attention to the social pressures the Bill could not address.
“Everyone accepts that coercive control is common—indeed, it is incredibly common, as is domestic abuse and elder abuse. There are very clear risks of coercion. I recognise that the supporters of the Bill have sought to improve protections and to protect people in those types of circumstances. I have anxiously scrutinised those protections, and I do not believe that they will achieve their aim. That is why the amendments are so important…However, one must not lose sight of the fundamental point that the protections in the Bill will not address the profound societal pressures that people will face. One must not lose sight of the fact that, whatever protections are included in the Bill, it will not protect people against coercion.”
MPs repeatedly objected to the inclusion of so-called Henry VIII powers that would give future government ministers the authority to amend primary legislation without the consent of Parliament.
Speaking about the experience of other jurisdictions, Dr Caroline Johnson referred to data that contradicted the myth of the peaceful death so often promoted by supporters of assisted suicide. Citing a fact-finding trip by MPs to examine the effects of assisted suicide in the US she said:
“…we have a history of seizures, vomiting and prolonged deaths. On having been given the drugs, patients in nine cases in Oregon in 2023 had reawakened later. How they felt in the intervening time is difficult for us to know.”
Similarly, Rachel Haskell referring to the same argued that evidence that drugs that induce paralysis give the impression of peacefulness while the patient’s lungs fill with fluid in what could be a very slow and agonising death.
Marking a small victory for critics of the Bill, in the final vote of the day MPs gave their backing to an amendment to prevent doctors from raising the option of assisted suicide with anyone under 18 years of age.
While none of the votes so far can give a clear indication of whether the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will pass its Third Reading on 20 June, few following the debate in the House of Commons could be in any doubt as to the magnitude of the social and ethical changes that would follow the legalisation of assisted suicide.
If you’re reading this and haven’t yet donated to SPUC, please consider helping now. Thank You!
