Week two of the assisted suicide Bill Select Committee in the House of Lords showed that when Parliament hears from those most at risk, the Bill’s argument collapses. Disability rights campaigners, human rights experts, and mental health specialists gathered to reveal the dangers, shattering the illusion of effective safeguards.
The week began with evidence from leading palliative clinicians, care providers, and a representative from Age UK. Dr Sam Ahmedzai, a pro-assisted suicide doctor, acknowledged that “there will be mistakes and casualties” if the Bill passes. Even he, an assisted suicide fan, could not hide the reality. People would die who should not.
Baroness Hayter, a stalwart of the pro-camp, unwittingly admitted that it is very hard to safely legislate for introducing assisted suicide. Pro-assisted suicide Justice Minister Sarah Sackman floundered, offering evasions and vague complaints about the current law’s “conundrums” and “real difficulties” but few answers. Sackman’s silent sidekick, Paul Candler, spoke for less than 30 seconds during the 75-minute session.
A senior representative from Mind outlined threats to suicide prevention efforts. Dr Sarah Hughes said that Mind simply cannot support the Bill in its current form. Jurisdictions that have legalised assisted suicide have seen the law expand quickly, she said, and assessments by video call are utterly insufficient. Cherryl Henry-Leach, Chief Executive at Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse, summarised this well by stating, “It will be very difficult to deliver assisted dying safely”.
Paralympic legend and member of the House of Lords Tanni Grey-Thompson delivered one of the committee’s most emotional interventions. She branded the Bill “a danger to disabled people,” explaining through obvious emotion how parents fear how their adult children with Down’s syndrome will be treated if they outlive them. Baroness Grey-Thompson dismantled the Bill’s six-month prognosis safeguard, calling it “arbitrary” and a “best guess,” and warned it would not protect disabled people at all. She told her fellow parliamentarians that no disability organisation supports the Bill.
Baroness Grey-Thompson also shot down the nonsense claim that those who are terminally ill and choose to end their lives are not committing suicide. She said she sat on the Board of Transport for London for ten years, introducing safeguards at tube stations near hospitals to prevent suicides after bad prognoses.
Ken Ross from the National Down Syndrome Policy Group said that there’s “a real fear” among people with Down’s syndrome that this Bill will further target their lives. He outlined the risks: rubber-stamp eligibility panels enabling a repeat of historic scandals and the impossibility of safeguarding people with Down’s syndrome from wrongful deaths. Ross worries that the assisted suicide “death panels” could turn into little more than a rubber-stamping exercise, similar to the Gosport scandal, where hundreds of vulnerable individuals died from wrongful opiate use.
Alasdair Henderson KC, commissioner at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, stated that while the original criteria may seem reasonable to some, eligibility could expand under human rights discrimination challenges. “If you have any doubts that those safeguards will work, then you should vote against!” Henderson urged. Baroness Berger pointed out that the Equality impact assessment prioritised “access” over protecting the vulnerable, while Henderson acknowledged the insufficient analysis of coercion and pressure.
Baroness Scotland highlighted the worsening situation in Canada, where the expansion of assisted suicide and euthanasia is eroding the rights of people with disabilities. She asked the expert witness panel if the current Bill was “safe or not”. Every witness either said no or shook their head.
Prof Monckton-Smith highlighted the inadequacy of current proposals for the “death panels” reviewing assisted suicide applications, as they would fail to detect coercion effectively. Critical questions remain unanswered: how can we distinguish requests for death arising from abuse from illness, especially when victims deny they are coerced? She noted that victims of domestic abuse often receive “palliative rather than curative” care.
Lord Markham misleadingly claimed there was no “third choice” regarding assisted suicide, stating it was either pass the Bill or keep the status quo. He neglected to mention the obvious alternative: improve palliative and end-of-life care. Lord Winston joined the bandwagon, claiming there’s “no alternative” to assisted suicide in order to alleviate suffering, seemingly forgetting that suffering is not mentioned in the Bill. Not wanting to waste an opportunity, Lord Markham launched into a lengthy pro-assisted suicide diatribe rather than question witnesses, absurdly asserting that the Bill and its safeguards, “we would all agree”, are better than the status quo.
Those at risk from this law — our society’s most vulnerable — and the organisations which represent them have made clear that assisted suicide is unsafe. People with disabilities, abuse experts, those who work with mental illness, Royal Colleges, doctors and advocacy groups, warn that this Bill is unfit for purpose. Supporters of the Bill have acknowledged the inevitability of wrongful deaths with the same nonchalance they have shown toward the importance of life throughout the debate. Assisted suicide is a national tragedy in the making. Those who still support this Bill need to reassess their views before it is too late.
