These questions highlight some profound dangers associated with the Westminster assisted suicide legislation, which will be debated again on 16 May. They are serious questions to raise with any MP - whether they are leaning in favour of the Bill or against it.
Please consider emailing them to your MP. We have provided a draft email below to make it easier for you to do this. You may also wish to seek a meeting with your MP, where you can raise the points in person. You can find out who your MP is by visiting the Write To Them website.
Example email
Dear [MP name],
I’m writing to ask you to oppose the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill when it reaches Third Reading in the House of Commons. Whatever your personal view is on this issue, it is clear that the legislation is deeply flawed. The questions below point to significant problems that have not been addressed by supporters. Please read these and bear them in mind as you decide which way you will vote. I would be grateful for a reply indiciating your voting intention.
Your sincerely,
[Your name]
25 Questions on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
1. Feeling like “a burden” could be a “legitimate” reason to ask for an assisted suicide, and an amendment to rule this out was rejected at the Committee stage. How common do you think it is for terminally ill people to feel like a burden?
2. If a terminally ill person asks for assisted suicide only because they are on a long waiting list for treatment, the authorities will have to approve the suicide. Do you think that’s a legitimate reason for a person to end their own life?
3. If a terminally ill person asks for assisted suicide only because they are depressed, the request must be approved. An amendment that doctors must at least check for remediable suicide risk factors was rejected at Committee. Is this acceptable?
4. Studies have found that “six months” is an extremely unreliable category, and DWP figures show that 20% of those given a six-month prognosis are still alive three years later. Are you comfortable with people receiving an assisted death who had years of life ahead of them?
5. Proponents of assisted suicide say it’s to help people in intractable pain. If this is the case, why was an amendment that specified pain must be the reason for assisted suicide rejected?
6. Kim Leadbeater’s legislation would amend the meaning of the NHS’s founding principles, in order to incorporate assisted suicide into the health service. Do you accept the BMA’s view that “assisted dying is not a ‘treatment option’ in the conventional sense”?
7. The government has said it is open to private provision as long as it’s free at the point of use. Would you be comfortable with Serco or Capita providing assisted deaths?
8. The Times reported that Ms Leadbeater is considering an amendment to cap private providers’ profits at “reasonable” levels. That amendment was never tabled. Why not?
9. Under the Bill, doctors are allowed to raise assisted suicide when the patient hasn’t mentioned it (an amendment to rule this out was opposed). Couldn’t this lead vulnerable patients towards assisted suicide who otherwise wouldn’t have considered it?
10. Doctors can raise the procedure with under-18s (who aren’t yet eligible). An amendment to change this was voted down, on the basis that “open conversations…create…safeguards”. Which safeguards are created by allowing doctors to raise assisted suicide with children?
11. Why do the new panels cited in the Bill not have require members to ask patients questions? They just have to “hear from” two people, and it could be over audio link.
12. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has strongly criticised some of the Bill’s provisions. Why was this organisation originally blocked from giving oral evidence at Committee, and why were they not consulted before an announcement that psychiatrists would have to staff panels?
13. The panels cited in the legislation have no power of summons: so, if they suspect that a woman might be being coerced by her husband, and wish to ask him questions, he can simply ignore the request. Why have panels been made so weak?
14. A critique by Sir James Munby’s was given as a reason for dropping the High Court safeguard, but he said under the new panels approach: “The Bill still falls lamentably short of providing adequate safeguards.” Why was he right before and wrong now?
15. Of the 25 KCs who previously signed a letter supporting Kim Leadbeater’s Bill with the High Court safeguard, only 11 signed the letter supporting the new panels approach. Doesn’t this suggest that expert lawyers think safeguards have been watered down?
16. Jake Richards, a co-sponsor of the Bill, has pointed out that polling is “ambivalent”, saying “it’s important to be honest about that. So, I don’t think it’s an overwhelming case in terms of public opinion.” Doesn’t this undermine the idea that the public want a law change?
17. Panels will have to assess coercion according to civil law – i.e. on the balance of probabilities. So, if the panel thinks “coercion” is only 49% likely, they have to approve the application. An amendment requiring the absence of coercion to be proved beyond reasonable doubt was rejected. Isn’t concerning for vulnerable groups?
18. Prof Jane Monckton-Smith OBE, a leading authority on coercive control, has said: “Unless we do take this incredibly seriously, this Bill is going to be the worst thing potentially that we have ever done to domestic abuse victims.” Does the Bill as it stands really satisfy concerns?
19. Assessors are supposed to spot coercion under the Bill. Yet, 50% of coercive control cases are dropped for lack of evidence, and only around 5% of recorded coercive control crimes result in a charge. How are doctors and panels supposed to do better than this?
20. Jess Asato MP’s amendment to require training on coercion was accepted. However, she is still wholly opposed to the Bill and says: “We cannot end up in a situation like Australia, where AD domestic abuse training forms part of a 40–60-minute self-guided online module.” Can proponents of the Bill guarantee that training will be more intensive?
21. Experts including a former attorney general and Dr Alexandra Mullock recommended that the “encouragement” of assisted suicide should be banned as well as “coercion”. But an amendment to do this was rejected by Bill proponents at Committee. Why?
22. The Second Reading margin was a narrow one (55%-45%). The committee was handpicked so that most votes went the way of Bill proponents (65%-35%), and the witnesses were 80%-20% balanced towards supporters. Is this really democratic, robust scrutiny?
23. A coalition of eating disorders charities backed five separate amendments to the bill. All of these were rejected. How can the Bill be described as ‘safe’ for people with eating disorders?
24. Prof Mark Taubert says those receiving assisted suicide drugs have a “substantial risk” of “distressing deaths”, and the anaesthetist Dr Joel Zivot claims: “Assisted suicide is not painless or peaceful or dignified. In fact, in the majority of cases, it is a very painful death.” Why were amendments to ensure that the drugs must be approved by the MHRA; that the Health Secretary must conclude they do not cause pain; and that applicants must be told about potential complications rejected? How can proponents guarantee ‘dignified’ deaths?
25. Amendments allowing family to know about and contribute to the assisted death process were rejected. Is it correct to say that the first a family might know of a loved one’s assisted suicide application is when they are asked to come and pick up the body? Is this truly humane?
The questions above are adapted from an X post by the journalist Dan Hitchens, available here.