The assisted-dying bill is unravelling before our eyes

The stakes could hardly be higher when it comes to the Kim Leadbeater’s assisted-suicide bill. Yet it is now abundantly clear that she and her supporters are determined to rush it through, come what may. The lack of scrutiny, discussion and consultation has meant that issues that should have been worked out before the bill was even introduced, let alone after it has been voted on in the House of Commons, are still being hashed out.

The shoddiness of the drafting of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted suicide in England and Wales, has become all too apparent during the committee stage, where 23 MPs are currently scrutinising it line by a line. Leadbeater had hoped that six of the bill’s 43 clauses would have been approved in last week’s sessions, but MPs are still yet to clear the very first clause.

Regardless of your view on assisted suicide, you might have hoped that, given the subject matter, the process of legislating would have been sombre, balanced and considered. This is not, after all, any regular bill. The social ramifications are huge.

Sadly, there is little evidence of effort on Leadbeater’s part to build consensus or to seek compromise when reasonable concerns have been raised by MPs. Her aim seems to be to get the bill over the line at all costs, not least by stacking the membership of the committee scrutinising the bill in her favour. Last week, she dismissed questions about her bill, whether from dissenting experts or from disability campaigners, as simply ‘noise’.

Leadbeater has given her opponents every reason to think the worst of her intentions. Most infamously, last week, on the evening before MPs were due to start their line-by-line scrutiny of the bill, she announced a u-turn of seismic proportions. A provision to have all requests for an assisted suicide signed off by a High Court judge would now be scrapped. This safeguard was cited by over 60 MPs as a key reason for backing the bill at its second reading in November – enough to swing the vote. Leadbeater herself went on about the importance of this safeguard ad nauseam. In fact, just over two weeks ago, when The Times reported that the safeguard might be dropped, Leadbeater denied outright and on the record that she had any such intentions. This is evidence either of outright deceit, of a failure to engage in good faith or perhaps of incompetence in the face of such a complex piece of legislation – none of which inspires confidence in either the bill’s sponsor or the process.

Leadbeater now plans to amend the bill to replace the High Court safeguard with something she is calling ‘judge plus’, even though it actually involves stripping out the role of the High Court judge. Instead, cases will be assessed by panels – dubbed ‘death panels’ by the Daily Mail – composed of a lower-level legal figure, a social worker and a psychiatrist. As Kate Maltby summed it up in the i, calling this proposal ‘judge plus’ is akin to a health secretary replacing hospital consultants with first aid-volunteers, then calling the policy ‘doctor plus’.

MPs who voted against the bill at second reading have also tabled their own amendments seeking to close various loopholes that could result in vulnerable people being coerced into assisted suicide. I expected most of these to be rejected by Leadbeater, but I thought she would at least pay some attention to critics’ concerns. That was wishful thinking on my part.

Lib Dem MP Sarah Olney sought to clarify who would be eligible for assisted suicide, as the current wording does nothing to stop patients who are suicidal or depressed being helped to end their lives. Her amendments were rejected last week and her concerns were brushed aside. Conservative MP Caroline Johnson tabled amendments to ensure that the main motivation for choosing assisted suicide would be physical pain, not psychological distress. This was also rejected last week.

Last month, former home secretary James Cleverly proposed amendments that sought to ensure that no one who opts for assisted suicide does so because they feel like a burden. In other countries around the world with similar laws, this is one of the leading reasons for patients to request an assisted suicide. In Canada almost 50 per cent cite it, in Oregon 43 per cent do, and in Washington the figure is almost 60 per cent. Yet Cleverly’s reasonable amendments were jettisoned, too.

There was a revealing moment during last week’s parliamentary debates. Under repeated, pointed questioning from two of her fellow committee members, Leadbeater refused to confirm whether patients who feel like a financial burden on others would be approved for an asssisted suicide. She was asked outright, yes or no, but she couldn’t answer.

Of course she couldn’t, because that would have involved conceding that her bill is dangerous, in that it cannot protect vulnerable people at the very moment when they most need the protection of the law. Do we really want to create a society where we tell terminally ill patients that it’s okay to die if it saves money for their family? Proponents of assisted suicide seem to have no idea of the horrors they are unleashing.

Throughout this process, Leadbeater and her cronies have seemed not only complacent, but also belligerently confident that they have the numbers to ram this bill through parliament. She has treated anyone with concerns or questions with contempt. The good news is that this has not gone unnoticed. Some MPs have already publicly switched positions ahead of the third reading. The mainstream media, including newspapers that once took a neutral view, are getting louder in their condemnations of the bill. Only the Express seems to still be batting for Leadbeater.

Let’s hope the wheels continue to fall off this wretched bill.

Tom Hunt is a former Conservative MP.