I value good law: rooted in expertise, guided by compassion and designed to serve and protect those it governs. That is the approach taken by the cross-party committee of MPs examining Kim Leadbeater MP’s assisted dying bill, of which I’m honoured to be a member, as we continue our scrutiny of each clause and amendment. As a former NHS manager, I am more convinced than ever that we can craft the strongest, safest assisted dying law in the world for England and Wales.
At its heart, the job of our committee is to absorb evidence and stress-test the proposed legislation, line by line. It involves considering amendments; constructive changes that take a robust bill that was supported by a clear majority of MPs at second reading in November, and make it stronger still.
One good example is the amendment proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the bill’s sponsor, which would create a new assisted dying commission chaired by a judge. This commission would then form panels to provide objective scrutiny each time someone seeks an assisted death. Each panel would be composed of senior lawyers, psychiatrists and social workers. This kind of multidisciplinary approach is tried and tested in Spain’s assisted dying law and offers an additional layer of protection.
When I voted for the bill at second reading I strongly believed it would increase oversight and protections for the terminally ill adults who want this choice. In reshaping the way judicial oversight is provided, Leadbeater has taken an existing safeguard and built on it to make the bill better. She is doing what she promised.
Indeed, colleagues such as Jo White, Labour MP for Bassetlaw, who only lent the bill conditional support at second reading, have said that they are further reassured by this enhancement of the safeguards.
A big focus of our earlier committee sessions was on capacity. To be eligible under the proposed law, two independent doctors will need to agree that a terminally ill person has the mental capacity to decide to shorten their death. The bill mandates five separate capacity assessments, with the proposed panel amendment offering three additional specialists to interrogate a person’s decision-making. This approach is the gold standard of end-of-life decision-making; baking into the process multiple touchpoints to fully explore a patient’s wishes, their motivations, fears and priorities for the end of life, and assess whether they are able to make a clear, settled choice.
All amendments presented to the committee in good faith to make the bill stronger and safer are being carefully considered. We are passing amendments submitted by both supporters and opponents of the bill, including one from Danny Kruger MP—a staunch opponent of the bill and any law change on assisted dying. His amendment clarified that the eligibility criteria would be limited to those at end of life as a result of “illness or disease”, removing the term “medical condition”, given this term could be subject to wider interpretation. This ensures greater clarity over who is and isn’t eligible to request this choice. As fellow committee member Kit Malthouse MP pointed out last week, “clarity leads to certainty leads to safety”.
This week, the committee is continuing our discussion of how doctors and their patients communicate about assisted dying. Opponents of the bill have tried to propose a “gag clause”, which prevents medics from discussing assisted dying unless a patient raises it first. Gag clauses don’t work; indeed, the Australian state of Victoria is now considering removing this measure from its own assisted dying law after a review found it to be a barrier, not a safeguard. They undermine the core principle of patient-centred care, and seek to return to a world where doctors decide what patients should and shouldn’t hear—where medical professionals, not individuals, dictate the scope of their choices.
This phase of lawmaking is rightly long and detailed. What fortifies me through long committee sessions is remembering why we are doing this—to enhance end-of-life autonomy for the thousands of people with terminal illness who have been campaigning for this reform. One of them, Nat Dye, was watching our earlier sessions from the public gallery, and I was cheered to see him there. Nat is a veteran Labour party campaigner with terminal cancer. I can’t speak for all committee members, but for me his presence in the room was an important reminder of the real people who are at the heart of this issue.
Dying people and their loved ones are counting on parliament to get this right, and create a better, safer and fairer law for our country. I believe more than ever that we can.
