When MPs debated the private members’ bill on assisted dying last November, we were told that the requirement of High Court approval would make its safeguards the strictest in the world. If this element is removed, it will cause serious concern to those who wanted more robust and thorough protections for vulnerable people to be included in the legislation.
The involvement of the High Court was a key argument used to reassure MPs that there would be protection against the risk of coercion and undue influence, so the decision to end one’s life really was a free choice. This was a central consideration for many MPs when deciding whether we should take such a significant step for society.
As a barrister, I was concerned that the involvement of a High Court judge, without any real process to independently investigate or test evidence, was not enough to protect vulnerable people from coercion or manipulation. I submitted my amendments to the bill to try and strengthen those legal safeguards.
So, the decision to remove what I considered an already inadequate legal protection and replace the High Court judge with a panel is a grave concern for me and many of my colleagues in parliament.
We haven’t yet seen the full detail of what is being proposed, but it appears that decisions would be made by what has been described as a “multidisciplinary panel”—a panel, to be clear, that may not involve a judge at all.
It is hard to understand how this is being described as a “Judge Plus option” and pitched as a sensible improvement that would strengthen the safeguard. Taking away judicial decision-making is not, in my view, an improvement to the legal protections in the bill. I submitted amendments to the bill out of my concern that a court process without scrutiny or challenge would just be a rubber stamp exercise. And I remain concerned, whether that stamp is held by a judge or a panel.
I do not believe that we can be satisfied that vulnerable people are being protected from coercion or undue influence if there is no independent element to investigate circumstances and motive. In my view, the safeguards will be weak if no one in the process is able to challenge and test the evidence so that the judge or panel can properly adjudicate.
Within our legal system that kind of independent role is traditionally undertaken by the Official Solicitor. My amendment seeks to bring in the Official Solicitor to act as an advocate to the court and question witnesses in person, including the patient and doctors.
It also suggests that the court should consider hearing from and questioning those properly interested in the welfare of the patient—that could be a partner, member of their family or friends or someone who has provided medical treatment.
All MPs have a serious and significant job to do to make sure the assisted dying bill is fit for purpose. Any law passed on this issue must be compassionate enough to serve those who are in need, but robust enough to protect vulnerable people from coercion and undue influence.
Without meaningful protection, how can any of us feel confident that this significant step is one we can safely take?
