Daniel Dieppe works as a parliamentary researcher. He previously been a Tory council candidate and served as President of Nottingham University Conservative Association.
Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted suicide, is under huge amounts of pressure. If it passes third reading at Easter time, it could become the most consequential legislation for a generation. If it fails, the vulnerable will possibly be protected from the option of suicide for another ten years or more.
Announcing the bill in mid-November, Kim Leadbeater boasted it had the “strongest protections and safeguards of any legislation anywhere in the world”. Later that month, she informed the Commons that, because of “genuine concerns”, additional powers would be given to the Bill Committee – comprised of representatives from different parties and views – to “get this right”.
Unfortunately, the Bill Committee does not fairly represent a range of views on assisted suicide, as promised. The Committee is unfairly weighted 14-9 in favour of those in support, including the two government ministers representing palliative care and the courts.
Worse, only three of the ‘Against’ MPs have more than six months experience in Parliament, and five had never made public statements in opposition to assisted suicide before November; of the 14 MPs in support, no fewer than eight have previously made public statements in support of the terminally ill being able to kill themselves.
All this leaves us to conclude that little good can come from the committee stage. It is a shame, then, that MPs have such a high expectations for it. Dozens who voted in favour did so to allow “further discussion” (Llinos Medi) or “to ensure the deepest possible scrutiny” (Al Pinkerton). Leadbeater herself even said it was “a vote to continue the debate.”
Yet this is all wrongheaded. As Sir John Hayes pointed out in the Commons, bills of far less gravity than assisted suicide were subject to “three independent reports and pre-legislative cross-party scrutiny by both Houses”, before the second reading. The debate should have already happened. Instead, MPs had little over two weeks before the five hours of debate (and eventually just five-minute speeches) to weigh up Leadbeater’s bill.
As for the debate at third reading: it predominantly consists of praising the Minister and rarely lasts longer than an hour. (As shown here, here, here, here & here)
Now that the second reading has passed, the debate surrounding assisted suicide has shifted. Ordinarily, bills, including Private Members Bills, are extremely unlikely to fail at the third reading. Only one bill since 2010 has failed at third reading. This is because a second reading vote is meant to support the bill in principle becoming law, withstanding amendments that may be added at the committee stage.
What the vote in November represented, however, was not principled support of the bill. Dozens of MPs voted in favour because they blindly hoped the bill would become good enough during the committee stage.
Veteran MP David Davis voted in favour despite lamenting that there are “about a dozen” problems with the bill – and could become “like Canada”. New Labour MP Andy McNae voted in favour despite admitting that “safeguards need to be strengthened…I am fully prepared to vote against this”.
There are plenty of amendments which could improve the bill. Conscientious objectors (including religious hospices) could be exempted, chronic conditions explicitly excluded, and junior doctors, fresh out of university, prevented from participating. Doctor-shopping (choosing a different doctor if the first will not approve the assisted suicide) could be banned, doctors could be prevented from mentioning suicide without the patient raising it first, and assisted suicide could be made unavailable unless a real choice – including free palliative care – is offered.
Other potential amendments include: ensuring every patient is assessed by a psychiatrist for coercion; that next of kin is informed; that the proxy actually knows the patient; that the high court judge is actually a high court judge, not a junior district court judge; and that every patient is informed about the sheer inaccuracy of prognosis and unlikelihood of experiencing extreme pain in natural death.
The probability of many of these amendments passing is slim. Given Leadbeater’s supporters number about 50 per cent more of the committee than opponents, why should we expect many good amendments to pass? After all, Leadbeater won’t want to admit that the bill did not possess the “strongest protections”, as previously claimed.
Worse, opponents may cynically try not to improve the bill to increase its likelihood of being voted down at third reading.
The truth is, of course, that the bill is impossible to get right. No amendment could prevent assisted suicide from devaluing life and undermining the Judeo-Christian principle that all people are of equal value. No amendment could prevent vulnerable people from being pressured to consider assisted suicide to some degree or another.
You cannot legalise assisted suicide without using wildly inaccurate end-of-life prognoses, undermining medical professionals and kickstarting the very real slippery slope.
Unusual though it is for bills to fail at third reading, Leadbeater’s bill is more unusual than most. Since the Bill’s passing, momentum has decidedly moved against assisted suicide.
Esther Rantzen, whom Leadbeater ingloriously praised for campaigning to give herself “a choice at the end [of] life”, has miraculously come across a wonder drug which could keep her alive “for months, even years”. Dozens of MPs have stated that they will not vote in favour if it is not improved – an incredibly unusual situation.
As a new year dawns upon the United Kingdom, it is clear MPs must wake up and kill the suicide bill. No committee stage could ever rectify the fatal flaws of assisted suicide and truly protect the vulnerable. Come Easter, MPs must vote to bury the bill, never to resurrect it again.
Daniel Dieppe works as a parliamentary researcher. He previously been a Tory council candidate and served as President of Nottingham University Conservative Association.
Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted suicide, is under huge amounts of pressure. If it passes third reading at Easter time, it could become the most consequential legislation for a generation. If it fails, the vulnerable will possibly be protected from the option of suicide for another ten years or more.
Announcing the bill in mid-November, Kim Leadbeater boasted it had the “strongest protections and safeguards of any legislation anywhere in the world”. Later that month, she informed the Commons that, because of “genuine concerns”, additional powers would be given to the Bill Committee – comprised of representatives from different parties and views – to “get this right”.
Unfortunately, the Bill Committee does not fairly represent a range of views on assisted suicide, as promised. The Committee is unfairly weighted 14-9 in favour of those in support, including the two government ministers representing palliative care and the courts.
Worse, only three of the ‘Against’ MPs have more than six months experience in Parliament, and five had never made public statements in opposition to assisted suicide before November; of the 14 MPs in support, no fewer than eight have previously made public statements in support of the terminally ill being able to kill themselves.
All this leaves us to conclude that little good can come from the committee stage. It is a shame, then, that MPs have such a high expectations for it. Dozens who voted in favour did so to allow “further discussion” (Llinos Medi) or “to ensure the deepest possible scrutiny” (Al Pinkerton). Leadbeater herself even said it was “a vote to continue the debate.”
Yet this is all wrongheaded. As Sir John Hayes pointed out in the Commons, bills of far less gravity than assisted suicide were subject to “three independent reports and pre-legislative cross-party scrutiny by both Houses”, before the second reading. The debate should have already happened. Instead, MPs had little over two weeks before the five hours of debate (and eventually just five-minute speeches) to weigh up Leadbeater’s bill.
As for the debate at third reading: it predominantly consists of praising the Minister and rarely lasts longer than an hour. (As shown here, here, here, here & here)
Now that the second reading has passed, the debate surrounding assisted suicide has shifted. Ordinarily, bills, including Private Members Bills, are extremely unlikely to fail at the third reading. Only one bill since 2010 has failed at third reading. This is because a second reading vote is meant to support the bill in principle becoming law, withstanding amendments that may be added at the committee stage.
What the vote in November represented, however, was not principled support of the bill. Dozens of MPs voted in favour because they blindly hoped the bill would become good enough during the committee stage.
Veteran MP David Davis voted in favour despite lamenting that there are “about a dozen” problems with the bill – and could become “like Canada”. New Labour MP Andy McNae voted in favour despite admitting that “safeguards need to be strengthened…I am fully prepared to vote against this”.
There are plenty of amendments which could improve the bill. Conscientious objectors (including religious hospices) could be exempted, chronic conditions explicitly excluded, and junior doctors, fresh out of university, prevented from participating. Doctor-shopping (choosing a different doctor if the first will not approve the assisted suicide) could be banned, doctors could be prevented from mentioning suicide without the patient raising it first, and assisted suicide could be made unavailable unless a real choice – including free palliative care – is offered.
Other potential amendments include: ensuring every patient is assessed by a psychiatrist for coercion; that next of kin is informed; that the proxy actually knows the patient; that the high court judge is actually a high court judge, not a junior district court judge; and that every patient is informed about the sheer inaccuracy of prognosis and unlikelihood of experiencing extreme pain in natural death.
The probability of many of these amendments passing is slim. Given Leadbeater’s supporters number about 50 per cent more of the committee than opponents, why should we expect many good amendments to pass? After all, Leadbeater won’t want to admit that the bill did not possess the “strongest protections”, as previously claimed.
Worse, opponents may cynically try not to improve the bill to increase its likelihood of being voted down at third reading.
The truth is, of course, that the bill is impossible to get right. No amendment could prevent assisted suicide from devaluing life and undermining the Judeo-Christian principle that all people are of equal value. No amendment could prevent vulnerable people from being pressured to consider assisted suicide to some degree or another.
You cannot legalise assisted suicide without using wildly inaccurate end-of-life prognoses, undermining medical professionals and kickstarting the very real slippery slope.
Unusual though it is for bills to fail at third reading, Leadbeater’s bill is more unusual than most. Since the Bill’s passing, momentum has decidedly moved against assisted suicide.
Esther Rantzen, whom Leadbeater ingloriously praised for campaigning to give herself “a choice at the end [of] life”, has miraculously come across a wonder drug which could keep her alive “for months, even years”. Dozens of MPs have stated that they will not vote in favour if it is not improved – an incredibly unusual situation.
As a new year dawns upon the United Kingdom, it is clear MPs must wake up and kill the suicide bill. No committee stage could ever rectify the fatal flaws of assisted suicide and truly protect the vulnerable. Come Easter, MPs must vote to bury the bill, never to resurrect it again.