Back to Kim Leadbeater’s assisted dying bill, which continues to undergo scrutiny as it makes its passage through parliament. This morning, the bill committee gathered to further discuss the legislation – and, in yet another baffling move, MPs voted by almost two to one against an amendment that would have required a patient to be consulted about palliative care options before undergoing assisted suicide. Good heavens…
The amendment tabled by Labour MP Rachael Maskell requested that the wording of the bill was changed, to say that the patient should have ‘met with a palliative care specialist for the purposes of being informed about the medical and care support options’. The move would have allowed a patient approaching the end of their life to be advised on alternative end-of-life care options, which pro-life charities like Right To Life UK say would ‘have assisted some to live’.
It’s one of the latest questionable decisions – to put it mildly – made by those in favour of the legislation. As Mr S detailed last week, medical experts flagged up concerns about Leadbeater’s amendment which proposed that instead of having a high court judge investigate each case, a panel of social workers and psychiatrists should oversee euthanasia applications. In fact, one liaison psychiatry professor remarked it was ‘not at all clear’ whether there would be enough psychiatrists to sit on these panels thanks to a lack of staff in the profession.
The suggestion that a ‘death czar‘ be involved to oversee these panels has further put off MPs. Meanwhile the revelation that these proposed assisted dying panels will be able to hear evidence in secret at the applicants request – meaning patients’ families will not need to be informed about their decision – has left onlookers feeling rather uncomfortable about the legislation. In fact, there were quite a number of issues with the bill’s committee stage with Steerpike expanding on as many as eleven of them here.
If less than 30 politicians switch from supporting the legislation to opposing it the proposals could collapse. Will today’s latest development further dissuade parliamentarians from backing the bill? Stay tuned…
Comments