Photo credit: www.theguardian.com
Labour MPs Voice Concerns Over Assisted Dying Bill
Several Labour MPs have expressed strong opposition to the assisted dying bill, deeming it “irredeemably flawed and not fit to become law” in a letter directed to their fellow parliamentary members. The signatories of the letter, which includes prominent critics such as select committee chairs, have noted that “significant new risks” came to light during the scrutiny phase of the proposed legislation.
The correspondence reached Labour MPs as the bill’s scrutiny committee was finalizing amendments. The revised bill is slated to return to the House of Commons for its concluding stages in April.
Notable amendments have been implemented since the last parliamentary vote on the bill. A substantial change involves the removal of a requirement for signoff by a high court judge, which is now substituted with an expert panel comprising a psychiatrist and a social worker.
This week, in a move that drew the ire of some supporters of the legislation, the bill’s sponsor, Kim Leadbeater, extended the bill’s implementation period from two years to four. As such, if the bill is eventually approved, it seems unlikely that any assisted deaths will occur before 2029.
In their letter, critics, which include committee chairs Meg Hillier and Florence Eshalomi along with other MPs such as Antonia Bance, Jess Asato, James Frith, and Melanie Ward, expressed dissatisfaction with the committee’s work, stating that the assurance of strengthening the bill was not fulfilled.
The bill was finalized during an intensive session that stretched late into the night, with MPs deliberating over numerous amendments. Some of the MPs opposing assisted dying have consistently claimed that their amendments aimed at safety were rejected in votes.
Upon concluding the committee review, Leadbeater asserted that the legislation has evolved into “the strongest assisted dying legislation anywhere in the world,” highlighting new measures such as mandatory training for healthcare providers and panel members to identify potential coercion. She emphasized that those contemplating assisted death would be fully informed about all end-of-life care options available to them.
However, the dissenting MPs criticized the bill, arguing that it contained “reckless and loose language” which could undermine the fundamental principles of the National Health Service (NHS). They pointed out that there were inadequate protections for vulnerable groups, including children, individuals facing anorexia, those dealing with mental health issues, people with learning disabilities, and victims of domestic or financial abuse.
Further concerns expressed included the possibility that doctors might be permitted to proactively suggest assisted dying to patients who had not initiated such discussions and the risk that the private sector could profit from the new legislation.
“Our attempts to improve the bill have not borne fruit; we cannot endorse a vote in favor of it,” the MPs stated in their letter. “We sincerely hope that this bill does not advance in its current state and that we can find a more appropriate avenue to discuss end-of-life choices.”
“However, a flawed and dangerous bill that places society’s most vulnerable individuals at grave risk is not a choice in any meaningful sense, and we strongly urge MPs to oppose it,” they concluded.
In response, Leadbeater remarked that the “status quo is failing dying people and their families,” asserting that the proposed legislation includes specific safeguards for disabled individuals and those deemed vulnerable. She emphasized the intention to assist only those who have a genuine, informed desire to pursue assisted dying in their preferred manner.
Leadbeater also expressed hope that confidence would be established in her proposal for a multi-disciplinary panel, which would replace the involvement of high court judges. “We are not excluding judges from this process; rather, we are enhancing it by incorporating the expertise and insights of psychiatrists and social workers,” she explained, asserting that these changes would bolster the assessment of mental capacity and reduce the risk of coercion while maintaining necessary judicial oversight.
Source
www.theguardian.com