The choice most desire when near the end of their life is to be supported by loved ones and to receive the medical attention at home or within the community. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill reduces “choice” to ending life rather than promoting quality of end of life care for now and future generations. It must be opposed.
What is being proposed in the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill?
Kim Leadbeater, Labour MP for Spen Valley, (pictured above) presented the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in parliament for first reading on 16 October. In principle the bill seeks to “allow adults who are terminally ill the right to request and seek assistance to end their own life, subject to safeguards.”
Late evening on Monday, 11 November, she published the bill where all 38 pages outline what these “safeguards” mean in reality for those nearing the end of their lives or with chronic ill-health. The headlines are as follows:
Eligibility criteria is for those aged 18 years and over at the time of asking for assisted dying, who have “a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”. It is also required that the individual is registered with a GP in England and Wales (Clause 1).
Terminal diagnosis required where a person’s death is expected within six months (Clause 2).
Two independent medical practitioners can make an assessment on the person’s emotional and mental capacity to make such a decision. The first assessment is made, and should the doctor believe the person has come to this decision independently then they would refer on to another doctor for the second assessment (Clauses 7 – 11).
The role of the High Court or Court of Appeal is to review medical assessments and patient’s diagnoses. If the judge so wishes s/he can speak with assessing medical practitioners and/or the patient to assist in their declaration for an assisted death to take place (Clauses 12 and 13).
Self-administering the drug to end life. Once the courts approve declaration it is then the role of the patient to self-administer the drugs or medical device to end life (Clause 18).
On BBC Radio 4 this morning Kim Leadbeater spoke about how her proposals “provide for the strictest safeguards anywhere in the world”. However, when you examine the details of the bill you find those clauses’ mention of coercion are weak.
At the point of a patient requesting assisted dying there is no examination by medical practitioners to explore if intimidation, threat or fear formed part of their decision-making. What’s worse, should one of medical practitioner’s decide not to proceed in the assisted dying process, those concerns are neither examined nor investigated but instead the patient is referred on to another doctor. The safeguards Ms Leadbeater speaks of are a formality with a pre-determined conclusion in mind; to assist the patient to choose to end their life regardless of concerns raised through medical assessment or from supporting family.
"I, like many MPs, have heard many heart-rending stories of constituents who have had poor end of life support. Yet had palliative care been available alongside an end of life plan, their experiences could have been so different.”"
Labour MP for York Central
Labour MP for York Central
Second reading is critical and here’s why
Friday, 29 November debate and vote is significant, and the result could end one of two ways.
One possibility is that MPs vote against this bill in its entirety and by doing so encourage fellow parliamentarians to come together, review access to quality of end of life care and fund accordingly.
The other possible outcome is that there is a majority vote in favour of the bill to move onto committee stage. Should this happen, parliamentarians will be ‘refining’ the wording and are a step closer to legalising assisted dying/suicide in England and Wales.
Because this is a private member’s bill the scrutiny in committee will have less time than for a government bill and they may not consider evidence from experts or other external groups.
As people of faith, where we are commanded that every life is of value and worth, therefore, to accept this bill would be a departure from scripture. For society to accept assisted dying as core practice within the health and social care sector is to accept fundamental change in the support, we are used to receiving – one where all medical interventions seek to preserve life to one facilitating death. We must speak out against this!
A creative minority working in collaboration
Evangelicals are a creative minority living in a pluralistic society. We seek the welfare of all as part of our worship and witness for Christ and service to those most in need in society.
The church can, and should, offer a pastoral perspective to this issue. For centuries Christians and the church have been at the forefront of the hospice and palliative care movements across the UK and the world over, and we continue to give dignity to each person in the final days of their life.
For the past 20 years, the Evangelical Alliance have argued against every iteration to introduce assisted dying/suicide as a viable pathway in the UK’s health and social care service. In recent weeks we have reasserted our opposition to Kim Leadbeater’s private members’ bill and why a law on assisted dying must be rejected.
The Westminster team are collaborating with other faith and belief groups, parliamentarians, disability charities and end of life care health specialists and consultants to mobilise across-party support to attend second reading and vote against the proposals in this bill. The state of palliative care is a national emergency that needs both public attention and political will.
The campaign against legalising assisted dying/suicide is slowly winning hearts and minds. Politicians and journalists who were previously in support of such a law change are now deeply concerned by how it affects those living with disability or suffer with a neurological condition like MS, MND, dementia and so on, that depend on health services to go about daily life.
We are encouraged by Labour MP for York Central, Rachael Maskell’s recent call on the government to set up a commission for palliative and end of life care. Because of her courage to speak out there is a momentum shift from other parliamentarians raising concerns about the bill’s proposals and failure to address coercion at the point of request and prior to death.
"We need to rebalance the system towards care in the community, rather than adding more and more staff to hospitals."
Independent review of the National Health Service in England
Independent review of the National Health Service in England
Update the morning of the debate and vote
Leading up to the second reading, we encouraged our members to get in touch with their MPs and closed the email your MP tool at 0915 ahead of the debate. Hundreds took the opportunity to email their MP outlining their opposition to the bill and to advocate for improving end of life care.
You can follow the debate on Parliament.tv from 0930 on the day or tune into Cross Section podcast later on Friday afternoon as we provide a reaction to vote.
