It’s still possible to stop the UK’s assisted dying law

David Albert Jones

December 04, 2024 4 Reactions

Two weeks before the debate, the Anscombe Centre published my paper, showing that another harmful effect of this kind of legislation was its impact on palliative care. However, in the debate, a number of MPs however, showed no awareness of this evidence. Kim Leadbeater said that: “The comprehensive report by the Health and Social Care Committee, published earlier this year, found no indications of palliative care deteriorating in quality or provision in places where assisted dying had been introduced”, whilst Kit Malthouse argued that “The evidence from the Health and Care Committee, published only in February this year, shows that palliative care and assisted dying go hand in hand”. The same sentiment was asserted by MPs Lee Dillon, Peter Prinsley, Rachel Hopkins, Lizzi Collinge, Drs Simon Opher and Neil Shastri-Hurst, Paula Baker, Peter Bedford and Vikki Slade.

As Rachael Maskell MP pointed out, however:

“Funding for palliative care has regressed against rising demand in an ageing society with growing comorbidities. Hospices are paring back services. Research by the Anscombe Bioethics Centre in Oxford highlights how jurisdictions with assisted dying fall down the rankings on palliative care, while promised funding never materialises. When more than 100,000 people, predominantly in poverty, from [minority] communities or based on postcode, fail to access any palliative care despite needing it, or when those who access care do so from frequently overstretched services, unable to make timely or optimised interventions, or when, for most, care starts far too late, tragic testimonies follow, as we have heard in recent days.”

Tim Farron MP likewise pointed out:

“In the last decade, the countries in Europe without assisted dying increased palliative care investment by over three times more than those that had legalised it. In the United States, those states without assisted dying saw an increase in the size of their palliative care teams that was also three times greater than that in states that had legalised it. That is clearly no accident and no coincidence.”

It is good to see recent evidence highlighted in Parliament but it is also regrettable that many MPs, including the sponsor of the Bill, continue to rely on evidence that is partial or outdated.

From a bioethical perspective this proposed change in the law is the most consequential for at least 50 years. It permits doctors to counsel and assist severely ill people to take their own lives.

However, most of those voting on the Bill had been MPs for less than six months and none had had sight of the Bill for more than three weeks. It was a Bill that had received no significant pre-legislative scrutiny and came with no statement of its impact on human rights. Its provisions have been heavily criticised not only by disability groups and palliative care doctors but by senior lawyers and human rights groups concerned about the poor drafting of the Bill.

There will now be a period of scrutiny of the provisions of the Bill. The Anscombe Centre, of which I am the director, will provide evidence to assist in this process, as it has provided evidence during the highly truncated debate prior to the Second Reading. It is to be hoped that some formal mechanism is developed for receiving external evidence on the Bill (which is not usual for a Private Member’s Bill). In any case, MPs will be seeking to inform themselves before tabling amendments and the Centre will present evidence in the public domain to help inform them.

It is also to be hoped that with greater scrutiny, the evidence of the harms that this Bill would bring will be recognised and it will be rejected. It is not enough to identify the worst elements of the legislative text which might be mitigated by amendments. The Bill is dangerous at root and if it passes into law then it will certainly cause harm. The aim is to encourage and assist suicide and over time the numbers and categories of those affected would only increase. There is evidence of this in every jurisdiction which has legalised euthanasia and assisted suicide.

For the sake of the most vulnerable members of society, it is imperative that MPs consider all the data from international experience, and having seen the realities and risks involved vote to finally reject this dangerous legislation. 

Is it possible to create safeguards for assisted dying which will not be abused or ignored? 

This article has been republished with permission from the Anscombe Bioethics Centre.

David Albert Jones is the Director of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre, Fellow at Blackfriars Hall, Oxford, Professor of Bioethics at St Mary’s University, Twickenham, and Vice-Chair of the Ministry of Defence Research Ethics Committee.

Image: Vicki Yu on Unsplash