When the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed its first stage in the House of Commons in November, The Independent agreed with the majority of MPs. They voted at second reading to approve the draft law in principle, while many of them had reservations about the terms of the bill and expected it to be improved when it was subjected to detailed scrutiny.
In particular, we agreed with those who said that the safeguards against coercion needed to be strengthened, and that the requirement for a High Court judge to sign off on a decision to die was unworkable.
To her credit, Kim Leadbeater, the Labour backbencher who is the sponsor of this private member’s bill, has taken those concerns seriously and sought to allay them. Since November, the bill has been improved, as was confirmed in the Commons on Friday.
The safeguards have been strengthened and the role of the High Court judge has been replaced by a panel including a lawyer, a social worker and a psychiatrist. This is a better and more workable arrangement, drawing on a range of relevant expertise, rather than a narrowly legal authority.
No doubt the bill could still be improved further. We are worried, for example, that the Royal College of Psychiatrists said earlier this week that it could not support the draft law in its current form because, among other things, “there are not enough consultant psychiatrists to do what the bill asks”.
But this raises questions that are beyond the scope of the bill itself, and it would be wrong to block the bill on the grounds that it may not be possible for everyone who wants to use its provisions to do so. If assisted dying is right in principle, it is better that it is available to some rather than none.
Among the amendments Ms Leadbeater accepted on Friday was one to exclude anorexia explicitly from the definition of a terminal illness. MPs also agreed amendments to ensure that there is no obligation on anyone, such as medical staff, to take part in a patient’s decision to seek an assisted death.
These are all further improvements to the bill. That is not to say that it has now achieved a state of legislative perfection. We remain concerned, in particular, about whether the protections for people with mental illness are sufficient. The Royal College of Psychiatrists says that “mental health services simply do not have the resource required to meet a new range of demands”.
Ms Leadbeater should continue to try to meet the concerns expressed in good faith by the bill’s critics. There is still time for further amendments to be made before MPs are asked to give their yes or no verdict on the bill next month – and it can then be amended further in the House of Lords.
However, one of the striking contributions to the debate on Friday was made by Marie Tidball, the Labour MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge. As an MP with a disability – she was born with shortened limbs and a single digit on each hand – she said she had voted for the bill in November on the understanding that it would be strengthened and improved, and that she was now satisfied that it had been.
Of course, the bill is not perfect, and never could be, because the subject is so difficult and the circumstances in each case will be different. Ms Leadbeater must continue to make it the best it can be, but those MPs who gave the bill a conditional vote of confidence in November can now safely send it on to its next stage in the upper house.
