In a debate in the House of Commons, MPs expressed deeply divided opinions on the Assisted Dying Bill, which proposes granting terminally ill individuals with six months or less to live the choice to end their lives with medical assistance.
The discussion highlights a stark divide on the ethical, practical, and societal implications of the proposed legislation.
Labour MP and bill co-sponsor Kim Leadbeater opened the debate, describing it as a “privilege” to present a measure aimed at providing dying individuals with “choice, autonomy, and dignity” at the end of life. She emphasised that the bill was not intended to replace palliative care but to complement it, creating a more “holistic approach to end-of-life care.” Leadbeater praised the UK’s world-renowned palliative care system but insisted that it should not preclude the option of an assisted death.
Acknowledging the challenges of the issue, Leadbeater said that “if any of us wanted an easy life, we’re in the wrong place”. She positioned the debate as the start of a broader conversation, calling for a thorough process to address what she described as an overdue issue.
However, strong opposition was voiced by several MPs, including Conservative MP Danny Kruger, who argued that improving palliative care would negate the need for assisted dying. He warned that the bill could expose vulnerable individuals to harm and claimed the safeguards proposed were insufficient for such a monumental shift.
“The proposed bill is simply too big for the time it has been given,” Kruger argued, cautioning that the committee stage might not allow for the comprehensive amendments needed. He further claimed that the bill would introduce a new “human right” for one group while creating a barrier for others.
Kruger raised concerns about coercion, suggesting that vulnerable people could feel internal or external pressure to choose an assisted death. He also criticised the judicial safeguards, asserting that decisions could be made with minimal investigation, possibly over a phone call or email, without requiring judges to meet the patient.
Labour MP Diane Abbott expressed partial support for assisted dying but echoed concerns about safeguards. She questioned whether the involvement of a High Court judge, which was intended to ensure robust oversight, might instead result in an expensive and bureaucratic process.
During the debate, tensions flared when Kruger referred to the bill as permitting “assisted suicide,” prompting another MP to interject, calling the term “offensive” and urging him to correct his language. Kruger defended his use of the term, pointing out that the bill would amend the Suicide Act 1961.
The debate also touched on international comparisons, with Leadbeater distancing the UK’s proposed legislation from Canada’s model, often cited by opponents as a cautionary example of a “slippery slope.” In Canada, assisted dying laws initially applied only to terminally ill patients but were later expanded to include those experiencing “unbearable suffering” from irreversible conditions. Critics argue that such expansions put disabled and vulnerable individuals at greater risk.
Leadbeater reiterated her belief in the importance of giving dying people autonomy, stating that the legislation would mark the “beginning, not the end” of the conversation. MPs are expected to cast their votes later, determining whether the bill progresses to the committee stage for further scrutiny.
If the bill passes today, there are still many months of parliamentary activity before it becomes a law.
Further news to follow…
