Back to the assisted dying bill. It has emerged that the legislation’s requirement for a senior judge to approve whether someone should be allowed to end their life has been removed over concerns about the toll it could take on Britain’s struggling courts. An amendment put forward by Kim Leadbeater, the bill’s sponsor, has now proposed that, instead of having a high court judge investigate each case, a panel of social workers and psychiatrists among others should oversee applications. How curious.
It’s certainly quite the turnaround. While Leadbeater has now claimed the changes will ‘make the system even more robust’, prior to her amendment, the bill’s sponsor and her supporters were vocal proponents of the high court judge method. In fact, here are six times Leadbeater promised the safeguard would be in place…
The initial bill
In the first version of the bill put forward by Leadbeater, the text states that under a section headed ‘court approval’ that after a patient wanting to end their life has had their decision approved by two doctors, their case would then got to the High Court ‘for a declaration that the requirements of this Act have been met’ – part of what Leadbeater went on to describe as the ‘strictest protections’. Her row back just two months later will no doubt cause eyebrows to raise…
Guardian interview
In an interview with the Grauniad, Leadbeater insisted that her bill was ‘really strict, in terms of the safeguards that have been put in place’. Going on she explained: ‘Two doctors would have to be involved in the process and it would have to be signed off by a high court judge.’ Does her recent change of heart make the legislation now less strict? Leadbeater certainly has some awkward questions to answer…
Economist essay
The bill’s sponsor made her case in a piece for the Economist titled: ‘My assisted dying bill safely solves a grave injustice’. In the article, Leadbeater wrote that: ‘The courts, both domestic and European, have made clear that if parliament votes for my very restrictive legislation, they would not and could not broaden its scope as has happened in Canada and elsewhere.’ Curiously, she didn’t mention much about relaxing restrictions during the bill’s passage.
Going on, the Labour MP vowed:
Two independent doctors and a High Court judge must be satisfied that a patient is eligible under the legislation, is mentally competent to express their decision and has not been coerced. I have had lengthy discussions with the British Medical Association, individual doctors and the judiciary at the highest level. They have reassured me that medical practitioners and judges are experienced in detecting coercive and abusive behaviour in difficult, even life-and-death circumstances.
Oh dear. This again makes it harder for Leadbeater to now argue that an expert panel is the way to go.
Morning round
Speaking to broadcasters last November, ahead of the publication of her bill, Leadbeater insisted that the role of high court judges in the euthanasia process is ‘really, really important’ – after she faced backlash from a former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who warned that ‘no one has grappled with the detail’ of how the legislation could affect the court system. Yet instead of further analysing the specifics, Leadbeater wants to bin off this part of her bill altogether.
The Rest is Politics
Lucky Leadbeater even managed to wangle airtime with dynamic duo Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell to talk about her big plans for assisted dying. On the podcast, the Labour MP repeated her mantra: ‘[The bill] has doctors checking for coercion. It has a high court judge double-checking that this person has not been coerced.’ That lasted long!
The News Agents
And to the bastion of political insight, the News Agents pod. Speaking to presenters, Leadbeater declared her bill ‘will be the most robust piece of legislation in the world’. Why might that be? Because – you guessed it – ‘two doctors would be involved in the process and then it would have to go to a high court judge to add an extra layer of safeguarding’. How the tables turn…
Comments