MPs in the British Parliament have voted for Kim Leadbeater’s Assisted Dying Bill on its second reading by 330 votes for to 275 against.

Despite the warnings from around the world, members of both major parties voted for the Labour MP’s private member’s Bill to legalise what should more properly be called assisted suicide, but which would most likely have received much less support if it had not relied on cosy euphemisms for what is essentially the State helping dying people to kill themselves.

Indeed, the whole campaign for “assisted dying” has been so shrouded in fluffy phrases that many think it means merely helping patients to have a more comfortable and natural death. Most likely this explains why a majority of the public have appeared to support such a measure – although, tellingly, that majority tends to shrink as the manifold problems are highlighted in detailed discussion.

But perhaps for this reason, when opponents raise the practical and ethical problems of this compassionate, autonomous process of de-lifing, in particular, the danger of slippery slopes – they are accused of “scaremongering”. However, that term might be more usefully directed at the practice of scaring vulnerable individuals into believing that they will “die in agony” if they do not have the choice that means the end of all choice.

And there has been a strange, one might almost say eerie silence, in all this discussion, about ordinary suicides, which are known to rise in jurisdictions where assisted suicide is legal.

Indeed, despite the well-known fact that suggestion plays a significant role in suicide ideation, the constant talk about deliberate death being an answer to suffering may well move people who are not “dying anyway”, but who are suicidally inclined, to take that final, fatal step. But we are meant to believe that assisted dying is not suicide, therefore instead of engaging in suicide prevention, we must engage in suicide promotion.

As to slippery slopes, Ms Leadbeater’s Bill itself resembles a slope growing more slippery by the day. While stressing its “strict safeguards”, she herself has hinted at its broader application – even acknowledging that being a “burden” on others could be a legitimate reason for seeking assisted dying. In an interview on The News Agents podcast, she said: “I know I wouldn’t want to be a burden to people, I can say that to you now in the clear light of day. But that’s very different to people saying, ‘I’m doing this because I feel like I’m being a burden’”.

As to “safeguards”, the ban on assisting a suicide could be seen as the “safeguard” that allowed Parliament to decriminalise suicide in 1961. It has taken a while, but finally, in 2024, we have come the long way round to dismantle that particular safeguard – arguably the most important. And among all the reasons why the Leadbeater Bill is so risky, according to former Chief Coroner Thomas Teague, is that “it removes the statutory duty to investigate suicides”.

This seems pretty alarming: coroners will be unable to investigate assisted deaths under Leadbeater’s bill (h/t @historykev) https://t.co/yHfI8AP4SW pic.twitter.com/vrG0I0RSe4

— Ian Birrell (@ianbirrell) November 25, 2024