Image – Unsplash: Frederic Köberl
The Committee stage of Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill (Adults) End of Life bill has now ended. Parliament is in recess, and it is now expected that MPs will have an opportunity to vote on the amended bill on Friday, 16 May 2025.
The amendments put forward by those on the Committee opposed to assisted suicide were, in effect, a list of the dangers posed by this bill; crucial safeguards that are missing from the bill. Nearly all the pro-life amendments which aimed to protect vulnerable people were rejected. We have highlighted some of these before.
Leadbeater’s briefing
Last week, following the last session of the Committee, Kim Leadbeater issued a briefing for MPs and the media. Journalist Dan Hitchens, who has been tracking the progress of the Bill like a hawk, highlighted the way in which Ms Leadbeater’s briefing seems to be at serious odds with what is in the Bill.
Here’s one example from Hitchen’s analysis. Ms Leadbeater states in her briefing: “An assisted death can only be discussed alongside other options.” Looking at the Bill, Mr Hitchen observes: “This is only true of the formal application stage, before that the doctor can raise the subject with anyone, with no legal requirements to discuss other options. The Committee rejected amendments to stop this.”
Here’s another example. Ms Leadbeater claims that the bill states: “The doctor must remain with the person until they have died.” Not so, says Mr Hitchens, who points out that there is “no obligation for the doctor to be in the same room. Amendment to this was rejected.” If MPs rely on Leadbeater’s briefing before they vote again, they will not realise that there is no requirement for the doctor to be in the same room as the patient once the drugs have been handed over. This means that there could be no independent witness actually present while the death takes place to ensure that the person was not coerced in their final moments, and it was still their voluntary decision to take the drugs. In the event, the only person who could say what really happened would be dead.
Assisted suicide drugs
The list of misleading statements by Kim Leadbeater about her bill goes on. This is of the gravest concern. Important amendments tabled by MPs opposed to assisted suicide were those aimed at clarifying and regulating which drugs can be used for assisted suicides. A requirement for the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency to approve the drugs was voted down, along with a requirement that there be a scientific consensus that the drugs don’t cause pain. Likewise, that Parliament should have a chance to vote on the choice of drugs used, taking into account side effects and complications. Dan Hitchens stated on social media that “no regulatory authority in the world has approved drugs for use in assisted suicide”.
A recent BBC film shows Wayne Hawkins from California taking lethal drugs to end his life. BBC journalist Fergal Walsh, who made the documentary, writes: “After three minutes Wayne enters a deep sleep from which he will never wake. On a few occasions he lifts his head to take a deep breath without opening his eyes, at one point beginning to snore softly.” Fergal Walsh reports that Wayne is pronounced dead 35 minutes after taking the lethal drugs.
This is a far cry from the reality described by palliative care consultant Dr Dominic Whitehouse in a video message to MPs last November, in which he explains that assisted suicide drugs are taken by mouth and “they are really difficult to take because such large quantities are needed. They often cause vomiting and seizures.”
Another chasm
Anyone reading the wording of the 1967 Abortion Act could be forgiven for thinking that this is a very strict piece of legislation, which carefully controls the criteria for abortion. But the gap between the printed pages of the Act and what has actually happened is huge. 10 million unborn babies have been killed. We are staring at another chasm between the assisted suicide bill on paper and the likely reality.
The printed words on the Terminally Ill (Adults) End of Life bill, as amended by the Committee, will simply not convey the horror it will unleash if it is passed into law. Will all MPs be fully aware of the amendments aimed at making this bill “safe” which were discarded by the Committee? While it is true that if an MP is prepared to vote in favour of the Bill, without any of the protections the fallen amendments may have provided, it suggests de facto that he/she is not concerned about those missing amendments. But it is also true that MPs may simply not be aware of what was rejected; unsurprisingly their attention may well be elsewhere on “welfare cuts, the war in Ukraine and tariffs”.
MPs must be made aware of what’s not on the pages of Ms Leadbeater’s Bill when they come to vote again. And that’s the task of the pro-life community in the remaining weeks before the next vote.
If you’re reading this and haven’t yet donated to SPUC, please consider helping now. Thank You!
