The Assisted Dying Bill
Like many of my colleagues in Parliament I’ve have been heavily engaged in the debate over Assisted Dying. However, this debate is no longer about the principle of assisted dying but the Bill in front of MPs which I and many of my Labour colleagues believe is deeply flawed and will cause harm to many vulnerable people.
The Commons Speaker has confirmed that only five amendments not proposed by the Bill’s Sponsor will be voted on at Third Reading, today.
It is my view and those of many others that this means the most serious flaws in the Bill remain in place.
A vote for the Bill at this stage is a vote to accept, permanently, a series of deeply troubling provisions. Even if we set aside the principle shift this represents to health and care in our country, I’ve the following observations.
The Bill will permit any doctor to raise the option of ending a patient’s life, regardless of how vulnerable that patient is, including those with learning disabilities, the victim of coercion or the steady rise in cultural and societal expectations that it’s time you go.
It means panels with only a 51 percent level of certainty will be able to approve life-ending decisions, without any requirement that the doctors involved know the patient, specialise in their condition, or consult other professionals.
The independent oversight once provided by the High Court has been removed. In its place are self-selecting panels with no investigative powers. The Chief Medical Officer, a vital safeguard, has been replaced by a Commissioner marking their own team’s homework.
There are no protections for hospices or care homes that object. No legal requirements for drug safety standards. No guarantees around patient awareness of potential complications. No commitment to meaningful data collection. And coroners will be excluded, despite warnings from the Royal College of Pathologists and the former Chief Coroner that this risks concealing abuse and wrongdoing.
The Bill permits for-profit private contractors to run this service without transparency, without a cap on profits, and without proper parliamentary scrutiny. Measures to prevent the marketing of these services were also rejected and so in the event the Bill becomes Law we can expect advertising of this. Another rubicon I do not agree we should cross.
It sidelines MPs from shaping what this will mean for our constituents. And it includes an automatic start date, regardless of whether training, systems, or safeguards are ready.
And experts and NGOs working in areas related to Assisted Dying are also clear that this Bill is not fit for purpose. The Royal College Psychiatrist, the Royal College of Physicians, GPs, disability or domestic abuse charities have all said this Bill will fail people and expressed their concerns about it.
I cannot in good conscience support legislation that embeds so many dangers, fails to protect the vulnerable, and forces through irreversible change without the oversight and safeguards this issue demands.
While many MPs and members of the public are open to the principle of this bill, as MPs we are not elected to debate abstract ideas but the laws presented to us.
Unless we are 100 percent sure that there is no risk to vulnerable people ending their lives early through coercion or self-coercion, we should err on the side of caution and reject this bill at third reading. Otherwise, we risk the vulnerable old, disable people, BAME communities and our NHS being harmed by the lack of protection and safeguards in this Bill.
For these reasons, I will be voting against the Assisted Dying Bill today.