Don’t be fooled. Campaigners often try to create a sense of urgency, making it seem like everyone is rallying to their cause in hopes of triggering mass support. Take, for example, the recent headline: “‘Chaotic’ assisted dying bill at risk over High Court U-turn.” Yet, as Kim Leadbeater’s committee carefully examines the assisted dying bill, it’s clear that the anticipated uproar isn’t happening. Despite certain Tory outlets portraying MPs in a frenzy, actual parliamentary movement appears minimal, with a tendency towards favoring the bill, as reported by the advocacy group Dignity in Dying. The bill’s second reading passed by a comfortable margin of 55 votes.
Leadbeater’s proposal seeks to replace the requirement for a High Court judge’s approval for assisted death with a panel of three experts—a psychiatrist, social worker, and lawyer. This has sparked a flurry of reactions suggesting it may undermine her efforts. For instance, the Mail ran the headline: “Social workers to sit on ‘death panels’ in Labour MP’s watered-down assisted dying bill.” The article claims some MPs, who initially supported the bill, are reconsidering their stance due to backlash. Meanwhile, the Times highlighted ten Labour MPs signing a protest letter, conveniently omitting that these MPs had always been opposed to assisted dying.
The Times has been persistent in its coverage, drawing attention to medical experts who caution that changes to the bill pose a “slippery slope.” Notably, these experts are from the faction that has consistently opposed assisted dying. The rationale behind Leadbeater’s amendment stems from practical insights, including those from former Chief Justice Jonathan Sumption, pointing out that an overburdened court system couldn’t handle such cases. Ex-high court judge Nicholas Mostyn even cautioned that without adequate judicial resources, the bill would falter. Although the Justice Ministry called for this shift, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood opposed the change. Brenda Hale, former Supreme Court president and a known advocate for assisted dying, has suggested that district or circuit judges could fulfill this role. She told the Financial Times she doesn’t necessarily see the proposed panel as a negative development.
Support for an amendment extending assisted dying eligibility from six to twelve months before death, particularly for those with conditions like motor neurone disease or Huntington’s, receives less attention. Backed by Humanists UK, of which I am vice-president, this amendment (though unlikely to pass) could pave the way for future extensions. Many who travel to Dignitas in Switzerland have more than six months to live. Humanists UK polling shows a strong majority, 73% of voters, support removing time limits for degenerative diseases like multiple sclerosis.
With over 350 amendments proposed, many appear designed to bog down discussions, leading opponents to later bemoan that key issues went unaddressed. Various arguments swirl around, such as the Telegraph’s outrage over the possibility that terminally ill people who are also depressed could qualify for assisted dying. But should the option be restricted to only those facing terminal illness with a cheerful disposition? That’s a fundamental paradox.
The campaign group Care Not Killing has unleashed a wave of targeted online ads, urging constituents to press their MPs on this issue, claiming they’re “watering down” assisted dying safeguards. An example involved Chris Bryant’s voters, with the campaign reportedly spending around £500 to reach 15,000 screens. Despite these tactics, I doubt MPs will retreat. Public opinion, as tracked by YouGov, has long favored assisted dying, with support holding at around 68%.
Labour MP Lewis Atkinson, who backs Leadbeater and sits on the bill committee, has faced such ads and a deluge of organized opposition. He shared with me that detractors are intent on delaying the bill’s progress, as demonstrated by a painstaking 10-hour debate over a single clause earlier this week. Misleading claims have been made, such as the committee’s supposed refusal to bar individuals with impaired judgment from accessing assisted dying, comments from committee member Danny Kruger echo on this front.
Atkinson dismissed these notions, clarifying that a rejected amendment regarding “manipulation” was trumped by another using the legal term “coercion.” Opponents might claim the bill’s sponsors rebuffed manipulation concerns, yet he worries they will time out the committee’s work and cry foul over a stifled debate. Conversations comparing the time MPs spend on contentious topics highlight how the UK’s highest-ranking Catholic bishop, Cardinal Vincent Nichols, alleged more parliamentary time was devoted to foxhunting than assisted dying—which won’t be the case now. Despite religious resistance, which often shrouds its true motivations, the legislative process presses forward.
The point of the committee is to meticulously examine evidence and enhance the bill, but entrenched opponents are bound to react to any modification with feigned outrage. Interestingly, the Express stands alone among right-wing media as a surprising ally for the bill. In an editorial titled “Plotters against assisted dying bill must not win,” it asserts that millions will be dismayed if this crucial reform is derailed, vowing to sustain the fight. With only 28 MPs needed to change their stance to defeat the bill, every moment counts.
