Westminster assisted dying bill debate did little to ease my scepticism

But despite all the platitudes about compassion, I’m very far from convinced that MPs who backed the bill have acted with wisdom.

While the assisted dying bill has cleared its first hurdle at Westminster, a similar law is currently being considered at Holyrood. Now that a majority of MPs have supported the bill in the Commons, it’s likely MSPs will act similarly.

After MPs voted by 330-275 in support of the assisted dying bill, its sponsor – Labour’s Kim Leadbeater – gave an emotional interview during which she spoke of her late sister, the murdered MP Jo Cox. Leadbeater, who replaced Cox in the Commons after her death, said: “Jo went in to politics to make a difference. I’ve done exactly the same and I know she’d be extremely proud.”

It really was powerful, even seductive, stuff.

But does Leadbeater have much to be proud of?

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was rushed before MPs before it had been fully considered. Leadbeater and others in favour of state-supported suicide have spent recent weeks insisting that the proposed legislation will included such safeguards as to make abuse impossible.

We have been invited to accept that medical staff, already under huge pressure thanks to NHS budget cuts, will always be alert to cases of coercion and to believe that issues which have arisen overseas – such as the extension of assisted dying provision to include those with mental health problems – will not be a problem in the UK.

I don’t have much confidence in the reassurances given by those backing this bill. My scepticism has been fuelled by the way in which Kim Leadbeater has conducted herself.

During the assisted dying debate in the Commons on Friday, Leadbeater rose on a point of order. She wanted, she told the Speaker, to correct the record.

A rather sheepish Leadbeater said she had wrongly implied that serving members of the judiciary had indicated they support the bill.

This is a serious thing to have got wrong but then Leadbeater has quite the track record of making blithe assertions on this subject.

After waiting until just three weeks before the parliamentary debate to release the text off her bill, Leadbeater set off on the media rounds, telling us that her bill would have the strongest safeguards in the world.

On examination of the detail, it would appear this is not so. The bill proposes that, in order to be considered eligible for an assisted death, an individual will require the support of two doctors, the second of whom is to be “independent” of the first. But this measure is rendered meaningless by the fact the first doctor will be permitted to select the second. And if that second doctor doesn’t sign off on assisted dying, the first doctor will be allowed to find another who will.

Given the life and death nature of the matter being considered by MPs, it is surely reasonable to think the bill presented to the Commons should have been as detailed as possible.

This was not so with Leadbeater’s bill. Indeed, in an interview on BBC 2’s Newsnight on Friday, she conceded there was “still a lot of work to do” on her proposals. Changes to the bill, she added, would be part of the process.

That a majority of MPs have voted in favour of an assisted dying bill that even its sponsor concedes is in need of work is troubling, indeed.

The brief public debate that preceded the House of Commons vote on Leadbeater’s bill was heavy on “be kind” sentiment, with supporters of a change in the law explaining that to allow assisted dying would be an act of deep compassion. They told stories of people helplessly watching loved ones in agony and of terminally ill people denied dignity in death. In uglier moments, we’ve seen opponents of assisted dying dismissed as religious zealots.

I have no doubt that Kim Leadbeater and those MPs who support her proposal are convinced they have right on their side but I find their certainty terrifying.

It is, without question, the case that where assisted dying has been made legal, supporters of the legislation have pushed for its use to be widened. It is not scaremongering to suggest things might play out similarly here in the UK. I was once very much in favour of assisted dying. I believed that it was the compassionate option for the terminally ill people whose pain could no longer be managed by medication.

But, over time, my position has changed. I’m concerned not only about the possibility of coercion but that some terminally ill people may conclude they should opt for assisted dying rather than continuing to be a “burden” on their families.

Despite deep division on this issue, one thing that both sides of this debate have agreed on is that end of life care in the UK is not what it might be. The consensus is that we need better services for the terminally ill.

With this in mind, the introduction of assisted dying starts to look like the answer to a capacity problem rather than an act of great compassion.