MPs must reject the assisted-dying bill

The controversial Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was published late on Monday night. This private members’ bill (PMB) is being brought forward by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater and will be debated and voted on in the House of Commons at the end of this month. That gives MPs just over two weeks to make up their minds on whether assisted dying should be legalised in England and Wales.

At almost 40 pages, this is one of the longest PMBs ever. MPs will have until just 29 November to scrutinise the bill’s opaque, ambiguous and often contradictory language. They will also only have five hours to actually debate it in the Commons. Compare this with Brexit, which prompted more than 500 hours of debate in parliament – even after the public had already made up their minds in the EU referendum.

There are certainly a lot of disturbing points in the bill that warrant serious scrutiny. First, it would make it legal for a doctor to suggest assisted suicide to a patient who hasn’t previously expressed interest in it. At the same time, it would not allow a doctor to refuse to have any part in facilitating an assisted suicide on the grounds of conscience. Even if a doctor objects to approving a patient’s death, he must recommend another physician who might. For all the pro-assisted-dying camp’s talk of this bill responding to public opinion, polls actually show that most Brits don’t want doctors to be coerced into facilitating the deaths of their patients.

A lot also hinges on a patient being considered ‘terminally ill’. Any patient expected to die within six months would be eligible for assisted suicide. But doctors can get these kinds of prognoses very wrong. In fact, studies have shown that doctors are more often wrong than right when they predict that a patient will die within six months.

Moreover, the phrasing of the bill is ludicrously vague. It specifies that a patient must have ‘an inevitably progressive illness, disease or medical condition which cannot be reversed by treatment’. In theory, this could in future include those with Type 1 diabetes, since insulin does not ‘reverse’ the primary condition.

The bill’s definitions are also confusing and misleading. It defines terminal illness as a ‘medical condition which cannot be reversed by treatment’. But at the same time, it states that a person cannot be ‘considered to be terminally ill by reason only of the person having… a disability’ – something that, by definition, is terminal and irreversible. Similarly, the doctor can ‘assist’ a patient to take lethal drugs, but not cause the patient’s death by directly administering those drugs. The doctor must remain with the person until death occurs, but need not necessarily ‘be in the same room as the person to whom the assistance is provided’. This makes no sense at all.

Many aspects of the bill are simply not practical, either. It calls for the High Court to approve all assisted-suicide applications. Judges would have to hear from at least one of the doctors who approved the patient’s application and could potentially also question the dying person. If assisted suicides occur in England and Wales at roughly the same rate as they do in the US state of Oregon, where it has been legal since 1997, we would be looking at around 5,000 applications every year. There are just 18 High Court judges in the family division who would be expected to deal with these cases. Plus, as Justice Munby, former president of the High Court family division, has pointed out, it is not at all clear the role the judge is supposed to play. ‘To what extent is the judge expected to exercise a discretion?’, he asks. You can’t help but suspect their role will be to rubber stamp doctors’ decisions.

Other aspects of the bill are bafflingly slipshod. For example, patients may give their consent to assisted suicide by electing a ‘proxy’. The proxy can sign forms on the patient’s behalf for ‘reason of physical impairment, being unable to read or for any other reason’. Any other reason? This is a loophole begging to be exploited by abusive family members or carers.

Astonishingly, some still don’t think the bill goes far enough. Esther Rantzen, broadcaster and assisted-dying advocate, suggests it should be extended to people with ‘chronic illnesses that can cause months of unbearable pain and distress’. She is not alone in thinking this. According to the Telegraph, 54 cross-party MPs are also demanding the criteria of the bill be expanded.

Interestingly, prime minister Keir Starmer, who earlier this year promised Rantzen to give MPs a vote on assisted dying, did not back the bill immediately. Instead, he said that he ‘will study the details’ because ‘safeguards have always been extremely important to me’. Assisted dying is one of the few issues Starmer has shown some consistency on during his career. Could the bill really be so bad that it could change his mind?

Sam Leith, literary editor at the Spectator and supporter of assisted dying, is also not convinced by Leadbeater’s bill. He called it a ‘botch job’, a ‘disappointment’ and a ‘danger’.

Hopefully, the shoddiness of the assisted-dying bill will give MPs pause for thought. Beyond its botched drafting, it would fundamentally change the relationship between state and citizen. It would alter the NHS’s ‘cradle to grave’ ethos and the relationship between doctor and patient. It would remove our moral sanction against suicide, and would divide the population between those whose suicides we try to prevent and those who we offer a push as they teeter on the proverbial ledge.

I hope MPs have the sense and courage to reject this bill.

Kevin Yuill teaches American studies at the University of Sunderland. His book, Assisted Suicide: The Liberal, Humanist Case Against Legalisation, is published by Palgrave Macmillan. (Buy this book from Amazon (UK).)