Legislating for assisted dying is a monumental task – but it’s not beyond the capabilities of this Parliament
November 2024, Kim Leadbeater MP speaks to campaigners in Parliament Square, after MPs vote in favour of her assisted dying bill (Credit: Imageplotter/Alamy Live News)
3 min read
The House of Commons debate on assisted dying was profound. Although the bill passed Second Reading, important concerns were raised by parliamentarians who voted in favour and against. As a member of the bill committee, the weight of responsibility is significant.
But after hearing from 50 expert witnesses giving oral evidence, and over 100 submissions of written evidence, I do not believe that it is beyond this Parliament, and our government and society, to safely offer further choice at the end of life.
Those who crudely split the witness lists into ‘for’ or ‘against’ tribes miss the point
The bill committee is not an opportunity to relitigate the principle of assisted dying. Those who crudely split the witness lists into ‘for’ or ‘against’ tribes miss the point. The committee is looking to improve and develop the bill, to ensure it is safe and workable, for the whole House to consider at Report Stage and Third Reading. The committee heard from wide-ranging voices and is itself made up of prominent proponents and opponents of the bill. The evidence sessions were, accordingly, illuminating – and raised new issues for us all to consider as we begin the process of line-by-line scrutiny.
Amid this wealth of evidence, and the detail that will come as we consider amendments, certain issues stand out for me.
The principles and approach to improving palliative care are consistent with the careful introduction of assisted dying laws. Both seek to offer end-of-life dignity, protection and choice. Critically, the evidence showed that where assisted dying had been introduced there had been a renewed focus on palliative care, driving up standards and further investment. This must be part of the challenge if assisted dying is introduced over a two-year period. The emphasis on palliative care, which this Private Members’ Bill has sparked, is welcome and must continue.
I was also struck by the many witnesses who advised the committee of the need for a multi-disciplinary approach to end-of-life assessment and care. As a lawyer myself, this shines a light on the judicial oversight currently provided for. The evidence from Sir Nicholas Mostyn, a retired High Court judge, Lord Sumption, a former Supreme Court Judge and Sir Max Hill, a former director of public prosecutions, was compelling with regard to the workability, and more importantly the efficacy, of the High Court acting as a ‘third tier’. The need for a holistic assessment to eligibility and to safeguard against the risk, means the High Court may not be the most appropriate forum for this.
Another theme of the evidence was to avoid what the chief medical officer for England, professor Chris Whitty, called a “bureaucratic thicket” developing through primary legislation. The evidence from Whitty, Lord Sumption and representatives from the General Medical Council and the British Medical Association supported the proposition that the most effective safeguards are those which are simple and universally understood. The bill mostly leans on established legal frameworks and thresholds which clinicians navigate every day on issues of profound importance, such as mental capacity and informed consent. I want the bill to be strengthened in this regard, but we must always balance the temptation for prescriptive primary legislation and the need to trust clinicians.
Legalising assisted dying is a monumental task for any legislature – one that some critics want to believe is beyond a back bencher’s Private Members’ Bill. I disagree. Many areas of complex social change were carried out by this procedure. I do not believe this important change is beyond us now.
Jake Richards, Labour MP for Rother Valley
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
