England’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Sir Chris Whitty, has retracted a key claim he made while giving evidence to MPs on assisted dying. He originally suggested that Kim Leadbeater’s Bill would require a higher level of mental capacity for assisted dying decisions than for other medical choices, but later acknowledged this was incorrect, as reported by The Telegraph.
In January, Sir Chris supported the Bill’s reliance on the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), arguing it carried an “absolute expectation” that more serious decisions required a greater level of mental competence. However, senior barrister Alex Ruck Keene KC challenged this, pointing out that the MCA does not impose a stricter capacity requirement for life-or-death decisions compared to less serious medical choices.
On Thursday night, Sir Chris wrote to the committee, admitting he could have been clearer in his statement.
But Conservative MP Danny Kruger argued that the correction had come too late, as MPs had already used his testimony to reject amendments aimed at tightening mental capacity assessments. He told The Telegraph:
“The clarification comes too late for MPs who voted against our amendments based on his assertion that the MCA explicitly requires a higher degree of capacity for a more serious decision. As he admits, it doesn’t.”
Kim Leadbeater’s Bill, which aims to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults with six months to live, uses the MCA test to determine a patient’s capacity to make the decision. However, experts – including the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) – warn that the Act is too permissive for such a profound choice.
In written evidence, RCPsych argued the Act is “not sufficient for the purposes of this Bill”. Three psychiatrists told the committee the capacity test was too weak to ensure patients were fully capable of choosing to end their life.
Despite this, on January 29th, Sir Chris urged MPs not to depart from the 2005 Act’s principles, incorrectly stating that it already built in a requirement for more serious decisions to involve a greater level of understanding. He compared a less serious decision to minor surgery and suggested that six out of seven doctors assessing capacity would reach the same conclusion – an assertion that was not backed by psychiatric experts.
On Tuesday, the committee voted 15-8 against amendments from Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Olney, which would have imposed stricter mental capacity checks and barred mentally ill people from accessing assisted dying. Ms Olney argued that under the MCA, individuals could still be deemed competent even if they only partially understood, retained, and weighed the relevant information.
However, MPs supporting the Bill used Sir Chris’s evidence to reject the amendment. Labour MP Marie Tidball claimed doctors “usually agree” on capacity decisions, though opponents pointed out Sir Chris had misrepresented the sliding scale component of the law. In his clarification, Sir Chris stated:
“It has been brought to my attention that I could have phrased this more clearly. It would have been more accurate for me to have said in my oral evidence that there is a clear need to have capacity for the particular decision that is to be taken.”
Mr Kruger warned that neither Sir Chris’s correction nor the MCA itself provided sufficient safeguards. He said:
“The MCA assumes the patient has capacity unless there is evidence they don’t; and it still assumes capacity even when there is evidence of impaired judgment, depression, loneliness, or wanting to die because they feel a burden. The MCA is inadequate to the task, and the Bill is dangerous.”
The Bill previously passed in the Commons with a majority of 51, meaning only 28 MPs would need to change their votes for it to fail.
Concerns over safeguards intensified after Ms Leadbeater moved to scrap the requirement for a High Court judge to approve each assisted death, a change critics argue further weakens protections.
