February 12, 2025 - 7:00am
A key “safeguard” in the assisted dying bill before Westminster is to be ditched, it emerged late on Monday. Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, the sponsor of the legislation, wrote in the Guardian that the requirement for the approval of a High Court judge would be removed, and that requests for assisted death in the UK should instead be overseen by a panel of professionals. She intends to lay an amendment to force through this change in the coming weeks. Leadbeater argues that the revised approach will make the process “even more robust”, but critics see it as a watering-down of vital safeguards that indicates badly flawed legislation.
Promoting her bill last year, Leadbeater repeatedly argued that it would usher in the “strictest” assisted dying framework in the world, pointing specifically to the clause requiring sign-off by a senior judge. Indeed, this aspect of the bill was used to sway nervous MPs at a key vote in November. Noting this fact yesterday, fellow Labour MP Florence Eshalomi commented: “The key safeguard that was used to persuade MPs who raised valid questions about the bill has now been dropped. To say this is worrying is an understatement.” Several MPs have since announced that, having previously supported the legislation, they will be changing their vote at the next reading as a result of the dropped safeguard.
The reason why the High Court judge clause is being ditched is clear. Appearing before a committee of MPs tasked with scrutinising the bill in January, Retired High Court judge Sir Nicholas Mostyn — a prominent supporter of assisted dying — said it would be “impossible” for the Court to rule in every case, given how overwhelmed judges are. Leadbeater has listened to this, but her approach raises another question: are the people proposed to oversee assisted dying applications on a panel any better equipped for the task?
Leadbeater says that a “panel” should include a social worker, a retired legal professional, and a psychiatrist. Of course, concerns about capacity equally apply here. Social workers frequently warn that they are overwhelmed by their caseloads, and psychiatrists face the same significant pressures as other NHS medics. Leadbeater has not detailed how panels would be organised or paid for, nor what recourse — if any — family members might have to appeal a panel’s decision. What’s more, those willing to join any such panel are likely sympathetic to assisted dying, which risks a less critical approach.
Opponents of the bill point to unsolvable problems with assisted suicide that make legislating for the practice reckless — regardless of where people stand on its ethics. Coercion of vulnerable people is not always possible to detect, while elderly people and women are particularly at risk. There is also no way to rule out that people may end their lives because they feel like a burden, or because of pressure arising from inequality. Britons grappling with loneliness, or who lack access to proper health, social care and welfare support, will feel pressure to die that others will not.
This new development will only add to existing anxiety around the legislation. Last week, a group of Labour MPs wrote to colleagues expressing concern about committee scrutiny. They noted that oral evidence from experts was “weighted towards voices that were known to be supportive of the bill”, and warned of a lack of witnesses being invited to discuss several important issues. MPs did not hear from an expert on domestic abuse and coercive control against women, an expert from a country that has legalised assisted suicide who has concerns, or a person with experience of a loved one’s assisted death where the family had concerns about their decision. These are all significant omissions.
MPs have also expressed concern about legislating for assisted suicide through the private member’s bill process, which is usually reserved for less consequential changes. Speaking to Radio 4’s Today programme, Labour MP Meg Hillier said that, as a result of this process, the bill has not been “rigorously tested”. She also accused the bill’s supporters of “campaigning” rather than “legislating” during committee deliberations. Leadbeater herself maintained this week that the bill is facing “unprecedented scrutiny”, but saying this doesn’t make it true.
The committee scrutinising Leadbeater’s bill is skewed in her favour, with 14 known supporters and just nine opponents. The Labour MP and her allies decided on the final list of witnesses invited to give oral evidence, and the length of this evidence. They will also have casting votes on amendments to the bill during line-by-line scrutiny at committee, which began yesterday.
Many MPs backed the assisted dying bill last year on the understanding that it would receive robust, impartial scrutiny. Several of these MPs have publicly changed their minds already, and more may now be rethinking their position. The calibre of examination the bill is receiving does not inspire confidence that its problems will be recognised and dealt with honestly. Any politician still undecided about this legislation will feel increasingly nervous about putting their name to it.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI am ambivalent about the idea of assisted dying.
One thing, though, I do believe it should be the case that any panel/experts/ medics should actually have to meet the person asking for this.
Not simply some form filling, tick box but sit in a room with someone asking for help to relieve suffering.
Are there any social workers or mental health professionals with the time for this? All the social workers I have met are massively overwhelmed as it is and we have young people sat on four year waiting lists to see a mental health professional. Are we going to be fast tracking the dying to die faster? Can’t wait to see the headlines about children dying because children are no longer our future.
The deal was for the Bill to receive detailed, impartial and robust scrutiny, with the proviso that a High Court judge would guarantee independent oversight if the Bill became law. Apart from the ‘detailed’ proviso, none of this is happening. Whether you support the principle or not, it’s clear that the government should quash this process and take over the management of the Bill. Not sure this lot have the appetite to disagree with their own side, or the basic competent impartiality, but still a better prospect than the current sleight of hand.
Two independent doctors must agree with the decision. This surely is enough independent oversight?
Is that two independent doctors who support the bill?
That’s what David Steele said would control the few legal
Abortions . Today hundreds of thousands in the uk
And the problem with that is what exactly?
Yep it was the thin end of the wedge undermining the value of human life and here we are…….Millions of immigrants who make little or no contribution, have no interest in working or integrating only reaping massive handouts. And with governments who place no value on family, a fertility rate that is no where near replacement.
Doctor mengele one and doctor mengele two will become known in short order. There won’t be anything independent about it.
If the government takes over the bill, it automatically becomes a party political football. The next government would then be quite within its rights to repeal the measure.
Once in, it won’t be repealed.
I agree, too much savings to be had.
Not good. Getting a bill like this through relies on creating very high trust and confidence.
Not entirely surprised at this development though, which I’d put down to incompetence far more than conspiracy. The original plan to get High Court judge approval seemed grossly impractical in the first place.
My concerns about the bill remain entirely on the practical side – whether legislators are competent enough to come up with something workable and robust and that doesn’t create endless legal squabbling now and in the future. As noted in previous comments, not convinced that it’s been staffed with the best people for the job.
Better to take the time and get this done right than rush it. I wish I could find an example of Starmer’s government (ok, this is a private member’s bill -at least in theory anyway) getting something right first time, but nothing springs to mind …
This makes sense. Requiring a judge’s approval to the decision after it has already been approved by two independent doctors is totally unnecessary.
I note that your article chooses to ignore this fact – i.e. that prior to the panel confirmation, two independent doctors must agree with the decision.
An important omission in the context of your article, don’t you think?
Personally, I don’t see why an additional panel on top of two doctors’ confirmations is necessary in any event.
I, for one, am very glad this bill is set to go through.
Two independent doctors. Where will you find such Solomons in an opinionated and easily influenced population? And who will judge whether they are independent or not? Quis custodet…? And so on down the spiral of turtles.
If the make-up of those ‘scrutinising’ the bill at present is an indication any ‘independent’ panels that are set up – doctors, judges, whatever – will be inclined towards death.
They are medical professionals. Is anyone truly independent? Of course not. I am not sure how having another professional (a judge) makes the process suddenly better.
Presumably you can use private paid doctors ?
They will, no doubt, be the sort of independent doctor that promote the gender caring treatment of chemical castration and chopping off unwanted human parts. Really reassuring.
There should be no panel of three people decidíng if someone should die. Ever.
Only the inhumane Left would even be proposing this.
The only thing she is missing is a scythe. And a hooded cloak. Two things
We have become all too used to government policies which blow up on the launchpad, because they had not been thought though beforehand. And now Leadbeater’s bill joins them. If she had bothered to ask Mostyn before presenting the bill to Parliament, she would have discovered that involving a high court judge was impractical.
Now MPs who supported the bill are feeling that they’ve been led up the garden path. They will be asking themselves, what other aspects of the bill are never going to work as advertised? Certainly, as Mr. Gillies points out, a number of important points were not considered by the committee at all. No wonder opposition to the bill is not dying away.
If Leadbeater has any sense, she will stop trying to gloss over this embarrassment, and withdraw the bill.
I have never understood why the oversight of a Judge was required. I would be surprised if there was a similar requirement in any of the jurisdictions where similar laws already operate (although I haven’t specifically checked).
I believe not but that is why proponents were able to claim that there would be a higher degree of protection than in any other jurisdiction, thus encouraging sceptics to support. That boast is now null and sceptics are withdrawing their votes.
Difficult to see why anyone is skeptical. Similar laws work perfectly here in Australia.
Also in Canada. Every so-called safeguard is also a barrier. With too many safeguards you might as well not pass a law that cannot be used,
All socialist governments end up killing people. This bill if passed will be used by the state to kill costly old people . It will have the strap line “ save the nhs”
F**k the NHS
Steady now, we must not disappoint important slebs like Esther Rantzen.
If the Bill isn’t passed, rich British people (like Ms Rantzen) will be fine. They will just go to Dignitas like they do now. It is just poor British people who will suffer.
So what will it be? A social worker, a psychiatrist, and a sitting or retired High Court judge? Or a social worker, a psychiatrist, and a lawyer appointed by a sitting or retired High Court judge?
And in either event, would they all have to agree to an assisted suicide? What if one of them said no? Would it matter which one it was?
The Assisted Suicide Bill needs to be put out of everyone’s misery.
The bill is what needs to put to death. The author is revealing herself to be, like Kervorkian in the US, a monster.
Self-evidently, overworked public sector employees and retired lawyers are unlikely to produce robust, informed judgements. Is Leadbetter really so unrealistic? And what is the undue haste to pass this legislation?Why is scrutiny and debate being curtailed? What happened to the “best safeguards” in the world? Time to end this undignified parliamentary farce and kill the bill.
Government assisted suicide is an outrage. It tells me all I need to know about the ruling elites; no respect for us or our lives life but plenty of money for asylum seekers and to sell off our future assets be they corporate or strategic. Plenty of money to adhere to international human rights laws but nothing in our interests. These MPs , what do they do for us, what are they for?? No one knows. That’s why they’re dead in the water and postponed local elections. They’ve being living in the past so long they don’t know it’s gone. They think this is what we want : a law to allow them to kill us.
I think the polling suggests that the people of Britain want exactly that.
It wasn’t that long ago when we crippled the economy and destroyed the mental health and development of a generation of children in order to stop dying people and old people dying prematurely and now the government wants to pay to do it when nature was willing to do it for free!