(LifeSiteNews) — Despite public promises that legalization of assisted suicide – if it is passed – will be accompanied by stringent safeguards, the Leadbeater Committee on assisted dying in the United Kingdom continues to reject even the most basic protections for vulnerable people.
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill passed second reading in November and is now being considered by a Public Bill Committee – but because Leadbeater has successfully stacked the committee with a majority of pro-assisted suicide MPs, nearly all amendments are being rejected out of hand. (Alithea Williams of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children recently detailed how the Leadbeater committee came about on the podcast here.)
In recent weeks, the committee has voted down an amendment to raise the bar of the Mental Capacity Act to “ensure an appropriately high test for mental capacity”; an amendment that would make it illegal for someone to “encourage” another person to choose assisted suicide; and another to “protect people from choosing assisted suicide because they feel they are a burden.” Right to Life UK also noted that assisted suicide supporters “on the committee also spoke against attempts to protect prisoners, where suicide rates are already high, and the homeless.”
READ: Disabled Canadian veteran warns UK citizens against legalizing assisted suicide
Leadbeater and supporters of the assisted suicide bill are simultaneously insisting that their proposed euthanasia regime will not resemble Canada’s – which has become such an international cautionary tale that even our U.K. cousins hasten to distance themselves from it – but their claims are frankly farcical. The actions of the committee on a single day, March 4, will suffice to highlight this point.
Ten Labour MPs supported an amendment that would prevent doctors from bringing up assisted suicide to children, who are as of yet not eligible for assisted suicide in the proposed euthanasia regime. Kim Leadbeater, however, opposed it, insisting: “We shouldn’t prohibit open conversation with terminally ill young people … this creates openness.” Openness to what, one might ask? The amendment was voted down 13-8.
Another amendment was proposed to ensure that: “If the person is autistic or has a learning disability, they must be given access to information and sufficient time to consider it. Additionally, there must be at least either a supporter or independent advocate.” That one was also rejected 13-8. Additionally, on March 4 alone, Leadbeater’s committee rejected:
- Statutory protections for people with Down syndrome.
- Requirements for psycho-social interventions and “for doctors to ensure no remedial suicide risks before beginning discussions about assisted suicide.”
- Proposals to ensure the proper keeping of records.
- A proposal for a 28-day waiting period before accessing assisted suicide.
- A proposal for a “multidisciplinary assessment,” including a social worker and a psychiatrist.
The essential question to ask here is: why? Why does Kim Leadbeater want to deny statutory protections to disabled people, when disabilities rights groups have been at the forefront of condemning her bill and warning of the effects it will have on their wellbeing? Why does she oppose ensuring the safety of those struggling with suicidal ideation? Why did she vote against keeping proper records? Or a waiting period before people opt to make an utterly final, irreversible choice?
Further to that, why did Leadbeater suggest that doctors must raise the issue of assisted suicide with terminally ill patients despite warnings that this could make vulnerable people feel pressured? Why is she rejecting the concerns of the more than 60 organizations now raising concerns about her bill, many of whom feel that they are being cut out of the process?
In case you think this hyperbolic, consider other safeguards rejected thus far by Leadbeater’s committee:
- Higher threshold for decision-making (rejected 15-8).
- Exemptions for prisoners, who are more vulnerable and at higher risk of suicidal ideation (withdrawn after criticism).
- Exempting the homeless for the same reasons (withdrawn after criticism).
- Prohibiting “encouraging” someone toward assisted suicide (rejected 15-8).
- Prohibiting “undue influence” prompting someone to choose assisted suicide (rejected 15-8).
- Mandatory meeting with a palliative care consultant (rejected 15-8).
- Excluding conditions from the definition of “terminal illness” if they can be “controlled or substantively slowed” (rejected 15-8).
- A six-month diagnosis must be accompanied by “reasonable certainty” (rejected 15-8).
- Refusal of food and drink cannot be qualified as a “terminal illness” (rejected 15-8).
- Strengthen language to emphasize that disability and mental illness are ineligible (rejected 15-8).
- Specify that comorbidities from disability and mental illness are not “terminal illness” (rejected 15-8).
- Raise the burden of proof for the person’s capacity (rejected 15-8).
- Capacity must include understanding key details (rejected 14-9).
- Capacity must be beyond a reasonable doubt (rejected 15-8).
READ: Toronto’s Cardinal Leo urges Trudeau government to stop ‘normalizing euthanasia’
Kim Leadbeater’s assisted dying bill is a looming, unmitigated disaster, and lawmakers must reject it to protect the vulnerable. There is still a chance to defeat the bill, and if you live in the U.K., you can join the campaign to stop this tragedy here.
