Assisted dying: High Court would not need to approve cases under change to bill

Proposed Changes to Assisted Dying Law in the UK

A significant amendment to the assisted dying bill in the UK has been proposed by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, altering the requirement for High Court judge approval. The original bill, supported by MPs in November, mandated that a High Court judge must sign off on each case after two doctors gave their consent. However, Leadbeater now suggests replacing this with a three-member expert panel. This panel, led by a retired High Court judge or a similarly qualified individual, would have the authority to approve assisted dying cases, with the option for High Court review if necessary.

This change aims to enhance the decision-making process by incorporating a multidisciplinary approach. The panel would include professionals such as psychiatrists and social workers, providing a more comprehensive evaluation. Leadbeater emphasizes that this "judge plus" system strengthens safeguards against coercion, ensuring that decisions are made with thorough oversight and expertise. However, this amendment has sparked concern among critics who fear it weakens existing protections.

Critics, including Conservative MP Danny Kruger and Labour’s Diane Abbott, argue that removing the mandatory High Court judge oversight reduces safeguards. Kruger labeled the change "a disgrace," while Abbott criticized the bill as rushed and poorly thought out. Former Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron expressed concern that even the initial safeguards are being eroded.

Despite the criticism, the bill is progressing, with a committee of MPs set to review it line by line. The committee, which has a majority in favor of assisted dying, will consider the amendments. Leadbeater highlighted the role of expert evidence in shaping these changes, stressing the importance of a multidisciplinary approach during a Sky News interview. She believes legal oversight remains crucial but suggests that involving more experts could further enhance the bill’s robustness.

The proposed amendments also introduce a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission, chaired by a senior judge, to oversee applications. This commission will refer cases to the multidisciplinary panels, ensuring individuals have the capacity to make decisions without undue influence. Additionally, two independent doctors must submit reports for each applicant, adding another layer of assessment.

Concerns have been raised by charities, such as Mencap, which fears that discussions about assisted dying might inadvertently pressure vulnerable individuals. This underscores the delicate balance between autonomy and protection in end-of-life decisions. As the bill moves forward, the debate continues, reflecting the complex ethical, legal, and emotional considerations surrounding assisted dying.