MPs have rallied around Kim Leadbeater MP’s amendment to the Terminally Ill Adults Bill that would replace the role of the High Court in the Bill with a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission and expert panels. Their views come as the amendment is expected to be published late today. Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision have welcomed this proposal.
The role of the High Court and its workability has been repeatedly challenged by retired judges such as Sir James Munby, Sir Nicholas Mostyn, and others, on the basis that the Court doesn’t have capacity and that it wouldn’t provide additional safety. Now Ms Leadbeater is proposing a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission, led by a High Court judge or senior former judge. It would oversee all cases and report each year on the number of applications and how many were approved or rejected.
It would also appoint expert panels, with each applicant for assisted dying going to a panel for a decision after sign-off by two doctors. The panel would be chaired by a senior lawyer or retired judge and also feature a psychiatrist and a social worker.
The only other country with assisted dying that requires more than two doctors to sign off on each decision is Spain. Its ‘third layer’ of scrutiny is a tribunal, which operates similarly to what Ms Leadbeater is now proposing.
Ellie Chowns MP commented:
‘We’ve heard from two Supreme Court presidents, a third Supreme Court judge, the former Lord Chief Justice, the former President of the Family Division, and other former High Court judges besides. They all say that High Court oversight as originally proposed in the Bill won’t work as intended. If judges are saying this – and they should know what they are talking about – then it’s absolutely right to amend the Bill. By doing so, Kim Leadbeater has demonstrated that committee scrutiny of the Bill is working exactly as it is supposed to, to make the Bill better.’
Tony Vaughan KC MP commented:
‘One of the main criticisms of the Bill at second reading was that the legal safeguard was said to be “rubber stamping” the application. I disagreed with that because any judge or lawyer being asked to ensure that necessary criteria are met would – and should – have the power to scrutinise the supporting evidence in any way they saw fit. The proposal to expand the legal safeguard to include an expert panel with judicial oversight, led by a senior lawyer, supported by a psychiatrist and social worker, would hugely strengthen the legal safeguard.
‘The key issue here is that people with the right expertise analyse the application; and that their expertise is applied forensically to the supporting evidence. The expert panel proposal will beef up the expertise of the legal safeguard element of the Bill, which will be broader and more multi-disciplinary than the single judge, as was originally proposed. In my experience, tribunals with wider expertise usually reach better decisions. There are many areas of our legal system where a legal member sits with lay members from the medical and other professions, such as in the social security tribunals, given the wide and sensitive range of issues that are examined. There is a whole appointments infrastructure which is already used to screen and recruit the medical and other members of these kinds of tribunal. Provided that the expert panel has powers to forensically scrutinise that evidence, by asking any questions they wish of those who have filed statements, if necessary at an open hearing, this will undoubtedly strengthen the legal safeguard in the Bill.’
Lewis Atkinson MP, who is on the Bill Committee, commented:
‘Over and over again in the evidence sessions we heard about the importance of a multidisciplinary approach when it comes to assisted dying. As someone who worked in the NHS before becoming an MP, I know first hand that the NHS is at its absolute best when doctors, social workers – a range of different professionals come together to support patients. Moving to a panel system brings that multidisciplinary approach to the heart of a compassionate assisted dying law.’
Rachel Hopkins MP, who is on the Bill Committee, commented:
‘We’ve heard from a number of experts across different sectors who have highlighted the value of multi-disciplinary teams when it comes to the care of a terminally ill person. I trust their position, and I agree with the amendment put forward by Kim Leadbeater. I believe a panel of experts, including a senior legal expert, social worker’ and psychiatrist, would make a well-informed holistic decision. This in turn will make safeguards stronger.’
Tom Gordon MP, who is on the Bill Committee, commented:
‘Over the course of three days, the Terminally Ill Adults Bill Committee heard evidence from over 50 witnesses, many of whom outlined why the High Court system needed to be replaced. We’ve listened to the evidence and Kim’s proposals are kind, considerate and put the patient first. This amendment doesn’t change the nature of the Bill, which set out to give dying people choice, autonomy and compassion.’
Siân Berry MP commented:
‘Relying on a panel of experts and practitioners rather than a High Court judge is an improvement to the Bill that has come about from listening, not just to evidence from experts including Professor Chris Whitty who wants to avoid a “bureaucratic thicket”, but also most importantly to dying people, who have told us to make the whole process kind. The whole point of assisted dying is compassion.’
Lizzi Collinge MP commented:
‘I’m really pleased to see this change which brings a greater range of professional oversight and expertise to the assisted dying process. The amendment shows that the Committee are listening to the evidence and making this legislation both strong and workable.’
Andrew Lewin MP commented:
‘I support the addition of a legal panel and am in no doubt the bill retains some of the strongest safeguards of any jurisdiction in the world.
‘It reflects well on Kim Leadbeater’s leadership that she is listening to the committee and acting on feedback.
‘There are some opponents of this bill whose motivation is simply to bring it down. By contrast, Kim is listening to the evidence and working to bring colleagues together.’
Cat Eccles MP commented:
‘This amendment strengthens the Bill’s safeguards while keeping a judicial element without overwhelming the courts. An expert panel appointed by a High Court judge would include psychologists and social workers who are experts in identifying capacity, coercion and consent. This makes the process more robust without adding unnecessary bureaucracy and barriers. From my conversations with colleagues, I’m confident the Bill will pass its third reading.’
Vikki Slade MP commented:
‘Far from watering down the safeguards this amendment actually responds to some of the criticisms that we heard at the second reading. Having a judge-led panel alongside professionals from care and psychiatry has to be a good thing.’
Rachel Taylor MP commented:
‘I am pleased to see Kim Leadbeater make a common sense change to the Assisted Dying Bill that will improve the safeguards that prevent coercion and abuse. This strengthens the Bill and I welcome it.’
Cameron Thomas MP commented:
‘Legalising assisted dying is about prioritising the rights and wishes of dying people. It is about empowering those individuals and giving them a choice. It would be wrong to force somebody in their final weeks to attend court, and plead for something for which they have already declared a clear and settled wish. MPs must not create a system which is so complex that it could expose people to unnecessary suffering or worse, that within a convoluted system they could lose the capacity to make their own choice.
‘Moving from the High Court to an expert panel is a positive step in the right direction, whilst maintaining safeguards.’
Andrew Cooper MP commented:
‘The public expects us to deliver an assisted dying law, and they want one that works.
‘It would be reckless to ignore the warnings of senior judges who have said that the High Court aspect of the Bill would not work.
‘Kim is doing what she should: she is listening and delivering an assisted dying law with the strongest safeguards in the world, but crucially, that is workable.’
Anna Sabine MP commented:
‘I support Kim’s amendment to have a multidisciplinary panel review assisted dying cases instead of the High Court. It’s safe and compassionate. The entire point of committee stage is to listen to the evidence and suggest improvements and Kim is doing exactly that.’
Sarah Edwards MP commented:
‘Some opponents of the Bill who criticised it for not, in their view, initially being good enough, are now criticising it again for going through changes. But this is how legislative scrutiny is meant to work: improvements are made in response to feedback. This is exactly what Kim Leadbeater is doing and I applaud her for it.’
Neil Duncan-Jordan MP commented:
‘This change brings in additional expertise to the assisted dying process. It keeps the legal expertise while enhancing the psychologist and social worker roles. It is therefore obviously a strengthening of the Bill and so I welcome it.’
Lists of large numbers of MPs wavering due to this change are not at all accurate
MDMD and Humanists UK have seen reports, prompted by opponents of the Bill, that many MPs may change their mind about it, perhaps as a result of this amendment. For example it has been widely cited that a group of 60 MPs ‘highlighted the High Court judge hearing safeguard as a reason for supporting the bill’ with the suggestion that these MPs votes’ are now in play.
Such notions are overblown. The 60 includes many who MDMD and Humanists UK knows from conversations are not changing their minds as a result of this amendment. Indeed many are quoted above. While it may be in opponents’ interests to try to whip up the notion that very large numbers of MPs could change their mind, there is no reason based on this list to think that this will happen.
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Assisted Dying Campaigner Nathan Stilwell at nathan@humanists.uk or phone 07456200033.
Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision have people and their loved ones who would be affected by this change available for the press.
If you have been affected by the current assisted dying legislation, and want to use your story to support a change in the law, please email campaigns@humanists.uk.
Humanists defend the right of each individual to live by their own personal values, and the freedom to make decisions about their own life so long as this does not result in harm to others. Humanists do not share the attitudes to death and dying held by some religious believers, in particular that the manner and time of death are for a deity to decide, and that interference in the course of nature is unacceptable. We firmly uphold the right to life but we recognise that this right carries with it the right of each individual to make their own judgement about whether their life should be prolonged in the face of pointless suffering.
We recognise that any assisted dying law must contain strong safeguards and the international evidence from countries where assisted dying is legal shows that safeguards can be effective. We also believe that the choice of assisted dying should not be considered an alternative to palliative care, but should be offered together as in many other countries.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 130,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
My Death, My Decision is a grassroots campaign group that wants the law in England and Wales to allow mentally competent adults who are terminally ill or intolerably suffering from an incurable condition the option of a legal, safe, and compassionate assisted death. With the support of over 3,000 members and supporters, we advocate for an evidence-based law that would balance individual choice alongside robust safeguards and finally give the people of England and Wales choice at the end of their lives.
Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision are both members of the Assisted Dying Coalition, along with Friends at the End, Humanist Society Scotland, and End of Life Choices Jersey.