In any contentious debate, the way one engages with opponents can reveal a great deal about the principles at play. Are differing viewpoints met with an open-minded approach, grounded in an assumption of good faith? Or do they get framed as inconsequential distractions? The attitude taken by Kim Leadbeater, the MP behind the proposed Assisted Dying Bill, is telling — and deeply concerning.
This issue could not be more consequential: the proposal to legalise the prescription of lethal drugs to terminally ill individuals has far-reaching ethical and legal implications. Foremost among the concerns is the possibility of vulnerable people being wrongly subjected to an assisted death with state involvement. Given these risks, it is absolutely critical that the bill’s proponents engage constructively with professionals in medicine, psychiatry, law, social work, and domestic abuse fields, who have raised serious reservations about the proposal. Unfortunately, Leadbeater has chosen to dismiss their concerns as mere “noise,” accusing those who question the bill of being unconstructive and even mobilising against it — as if there’s something untoward about people passionately opposing legislation they believe could have disastrous consequences.
The dismissive attitude is evident in the way the bill is being scrutinised in Parliament. Leadbeater selected the bill committee with an eye toward ensuring the conversation stays within a narrowly defined perspective, leaving out experienced MPs with relevant expertise, such as psychiatrist Ben Spencer, while opting for less seasoned members. The committee heard only three days of oral evidence, and alarmingly, it was skewed towards those in favour of the bill. No evidence was heard from experts in domestic abuse, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists had to be pressured into submitting testimony. With almost 400 pieces of written evidence pouring in in recent weeks, how are MPs expected to process and give adequate consideration to such a volume? In the meantime, the bill’s backers appear to cherry-pick evidence that supports their view while dismissing medical professionals who warn about the risks involved.
Matters took a more troubling turn recently when Leadbeater proposed a significant amendment to the bill that could undermine any remaining safeguards. Up until last week, the bill’s proponents had emphasised that assisted deaths would be signed off by a high court judge, calling it the strongest safeguard in the world. However, legal experts from across the spectrum criticised this arrangement for its lack of thoroughness — the judge’s role was essentially a formality, without any scope for cross-examination or scrutiny of the decision-making process. If the safeguard were to function properly, the judge’s role would have needed to be far more robust.
Instead, Leadbeater has now proposed removing the judicial element entirely. The decision-making will be handed over to panels consisting of a senior lawyer or judge, a social worker, and a psychiatrist. These panels would be able to sit in private, have no powers to compel witnesses to testify under oath, and could potentially approve assisted deaths with limited or no input from family members. This raises a chilling prospect: a terminally ill person could choose to end their life without their family being informed until it’s too late. In many cases, loved ones might only learn about the decision posthumously — too late to intervene or prevent a wrongful death.
Moreover, these panels would operate under a system where the appointed commissioner for assisted dying, who oversees the process, also has the dual role of appointing panel members and reporting on the safety of the system — effectively marking their own homework. This lack of transparency and independent oversight is deeply troubling. Opposition amendments aimed at strengthening the bill’s safeguards, such as requiring independent psychiatric evaluations for those requesting assisted dying, have already been rejected. Crucially, the bill includes a provision that would grant doctors who prescribe lethal drugs immunity from civil liability, including for negligence.
Despite these growing concerns, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has signalled his support for the bill, and government ministers sitting on the committee have voted in favour, ignoring the principles of impartiality that are expected of them. The government has also refused to publish an impact assessment or cost estimates before the committee stage, essentially handing the bill’s supporters a blank cheque.
At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental question: can we draw a clear line between those who make an autonomous, informed decision to end their lives and those who are driven by external pressures such as mental illness, abuse, or financial hardship? Proponents of the bill maintain that this distinction is relatively straightforward, but their critics argue that vulnerable people will inevitably be caught up in a system that fails to adequately protect them. This tension is reflected in the rhetoric used by both sides — advocates have tried to prevent critics from using the term “suicide,” while MPs like Kit Malthouse have attempted to redefine it in ways that obscure the inherent risks of the bill. Yet, experts like the government’s suicide prevention adviser have pointed out that the line between assisted dying and suicide is far from clear.
Should this bill pass in its current form, there is a real danger that some individuals will be wrongly prescribed lethal drugs, potentially under duress or because they feel like a burden to their loved ones. No regulatory system is infallible — and this bill’s proposed framework is notably less rigorous than existing regulatory bodies like the Human Tissue Authority, which has faced its own failures in the past.
The most charitable interpretation of the bill’s proponents is that they are driven by a genuine belief in the importance of protecting the rights of those who may want to end their suffering. But this fervent belief should not blind them to the real risks involved. They must engage seriously with those who oppose the bill in order to strengthen it, rather than pushing it through without adequate safeguards.
If the current trajectory persists, the consequences will be tragic: wrongful deaths that could have been prevented. And the responsibility for these outcomes will ultimately fall not just on Kim Leadbeater, but on Keir Starmer, who has supported the bill and the approach it represents.
Stay tuned to London Pulse News for updates on the ongoing debate over assisted dying and the crucial safeguards needed to protect vulnerable individuals.
