Is there anyone who thinks the Terminally Ill Adults Bill is safe and workable?
3 min read
A couple of weeks ago, there was a very striking moment as a House of Lords Select Committee heard evidence on the euphemistically named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
The chief executives of leading charities MIND and Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse, together with a Professor of Public Protection at the University of Gloucestershire, were giving testimony. They were asked a simple question: “Are the safeguards that are being proposed safe for [potential victims of domestic abuse]?” All the witnesses gave a simple, unequivocal “no”.
This alone should be enough for Parliamentarians to put brakes on the Bill. After all, the Government has pledged to halve violence against women and girls by the end of this Parliament. Is it seriously wise to open a new, potentially lethal, avenue for coercion, when evidence suggests that doctors already fail to identify signs of domestic abuse in over 50% of domestic abuse-related deaths?
But the domestic abuse experts were not alone. Witness after witness, from sector after sector – doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, coroners, social workers, pharmacologists – told the Committee of their fundamental concerns about the Bill. The lasting impression for any impartial observer: is there anyone who thinks this Bill is safe and workable?
Dr Price of the Royal College of Psychiatrists warned that the functions of the assisted dying review panels needs to be fundamentally rethought, so they can actually identify and address a patient’s unmet needs.
The British Association of Social Workers’ Dr Luke Geoghegan cautioned that people could feel pushed towards assisted suicide because social care is “in crisis” and people can’t get the support they need.
Mental capacity specialist Professor Alex Ruck Keene KC (Hon) was emphatic that the Bill is not “fit for purpose”, particularly in its use of the Mental Capacity Act. He accused the Bill’s sponsors of doing legislation “on the fly”.
The Children’s Commissioner for England shared her concerns about the “unintended consequences of a quickly pushed-through Private Member’s Bill”. She added she is worried that the Bill will “affect how children feel about living”, given the message the Bill sends.
I could go on. Former Chief Coroner Thomas Teague KC warned the lack of coronial oversight means abuses will “slip through” the cracks. Professor Martin Vernon of the British Geriatrics Society said making an accurate six-month prognosis – which this Bill relies on – is “almost impossible”. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society said that research on assisted suicide drug safety is limited and does not reach the UK’s “gold-standard”. The Law Society warned of the Bill’s lack of transparency. Commissioner at the Equality and Human Rights Commission Alasdair Henderson warned of a potential breach of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits discrimination.
Most of these organisations and individuals are neutral on the principle of assisted suicide. But their overall message could not have been clearer: this Bill needs to go back to the drawing board.
This must be particularly embarrassing for the Bill’s sponsor Lord Falconer of Thoroton. Whilst his Commons counterpart Kim Leadbeater MP is a relative newbie to the assisted suicide cause, Lord Falconer has made more than half-a-dozen attempts to legalise it since 2009. You would have thought he would have worked out the detail by now.
But perhaps that is precisely the point. After years of trying to square the circle, maybe now is the time to simply conclude you cannot make assisted suicide safe. You cannot offer someone help to die, when you haven’t worked out how to ensure they are offered help to live. You cannot expect medics to promote and prevent suicide at the same time. You cannot be unsure about the side effects of the lethal drugs and pretend you can offer dignity in dying.
