The assisted dying bill returns to the House of Commons tomorrow, when MPs will have an afternoon to debate no fewer than 44 amendments. They cover things like banning adverts for assisted suicide, which would pose an obvious risk to vulnerable people in a state of shock after receiving a terminal diagnosis.

Was it wise to leave such significant changes until so late in the legislative process? Obviously not. They amount to an admission by Kim Leadbeater, the backbench Labour MP who is sponsoring the bill, that it was poorly thought out and drafted in the first place. Some of what she’s proposing is jaw-dropping. Surely an assessment of the state of palliative care in the UK should have been commissioned before an attempt to change the law to help people kill themselves?

Leadbeater is now on the back foot, attempting to salvage a bad piece of legislation that was subject to inadequate scrutiny at the first reading stage — a failure which was exacerbated when the committee stage was packed with supporters of the bill. A series of organisations have since complained that they weren’t listened to or called to give evidence. Only this week, Professor Martin Vernon, an expert on law and ethics at the British Geriatric Society, objected that “there has been virtually no engagement” about the needs of older people with complex needs. A coalition of organisations providing social and end-of-life care has described the bill’s proposals as “unworkable, unaffordable and naive”.

No wonder some MPs — reportedly at least 15 from different parties — who voted for the bill or abstained are now having second thoughts. It isn’t enough, yet, to stop the legislation, but Leadbeater’s blizzard of amendments will undermine her position. MPs will hear some powerful arguments which have emerged since the first reading, and Leadbeater’s desperate last-minute tactics have created some breathing space.

It’s clear that an incredibly controversial piece of legislation is being rushed onto the statute books, with far too little attention paid to inflated claims and unforeseen consequences. Leadbeater’s trump card — that her bill “provides the strongest safeguards in the world”, including scrutiny of each case by a High Court judge — was dropped months ago. Now the bill contains that ghastly fudge, a “multidisciplinary panel” featuring a senior legal figure, a social worker and a psychiatrist.

But that’s not going to happen, either, following an extraordinary intervention this week by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The organisation announced that it cannot support the bill in its present form, arguing that “there are too many unanswered questions about the safeguarding of people with mental illness.” It also pointed out that there are not enough consultant psychiatrists to do what the bill requires.

A Government impact assessment published this month stated that more than 4,500 people a year are expected to end their lives via assisted suicide within a decade of the legislation being passed. That would demand the services of just over a third of the psychiatrists employed in the UK in 2022, the latest year for which figures are available, at a time when many posts are unfilled and waiting lists remain long.

Legalising assisted dying involves a momentous change in the relationship between individuals, doctors and the state. It should never have been undertaken so glibly, with so few safeguards that there’s now a frantic scramble to put them in place. The only thing that should be killed off tomorrow is this deeply insensitive and ill-considered bill.

---

Joan Smith is a novelist and columnist. She was previously Chair of the Mayor of London’s Violence Against Women and Girls Board, and is on the advisory group for Sex Matters. Her book Unfortunately, She Was A Nymphomaniac: A New History of Rome’s Imperial Women was published in November 2024.

polblonde

---