This cannot be Parliament at its best

Later today there will be a life changing, potentially life-ending, vote in the House of Commons. Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, otherwise known as assisted suicide, is getting its third and final reading. If it passes, it moves up to the Lords.

This seems to have created a problem in itself. A Bill dogged by a myriad of issues, some MPs seem to want to abscond their responsibility and, despite concerns on the detail, vote it through for the Lords to sort it out later on. It is an approach that has already been tried and tested, only to fail.

Many sympathetic MPs voted for the Bill last time around (it initially passed by 55 votes in November), hoping it would be improved at committee and report stage. Leadbeater, a Labour backbencher, even branded it as “a vote to continue the debate” at second reading. That hope was misplaced; it was not an open process, but a series of procedures that clamped down on criticism and dissenting opinion.

For those MPs thinking of trying the same approach again: voting for something at second reading to wait for improvements is one thing, but voting it through to make it law with all of its fundamental flaws in the hope that the Lords could do the proper scrutiny is an entirely other kettle of fish, and would be deeply irresponsible.

If you don’t believe a Bill with such huge ethical, practical and financial implications is safe – don’t vote for it.

Despite elements of head in the sand behaviour, praise for the tone of debate has been heaped on by the likes of commentators and MPs, including a self-nomination from Leadbeater – most undeservingly, in my opinion – that the last Commons debate showed “Parliament in its best light”.

Its best light? When the Bill was published it allowed for just two weeks of debate and scrutiny before a first vote, which then took place after just five hours of discussion. Remember when MP for Stourbridge Cat Eccles in that five hours objected to the use of the word “suicide” by Tory Danny Kruger as “offensive”, even though the Bill seeks to amend the Suicide Act 1961.

The subsequent Committee Stage saw a Bill Committee established with a majority membership in favour with a 61/39 split while the Commons overall was divided 55/45 in support. The Royal College of Psychiatrists were initially excluded from giving oral evidence; an Australian politician claimed that assisted suicide is a form of “suicide prevention”; yet no witness was taken from Canada, the Netherlands or Belgium, who’ve had difficulties with their experience of assisted dying legislation. That not bad enough?

Let’s remember how Labour MP Naz Shah, a committee member with hearing issues, had to leave sessions early after they were extended late into the evening, despite her warnings that the hearing aid batteries she uses would not last long enough.

Or when it was decided to remove the key security element almost entirely and get rid of the requirement for assisted suicide applications to be approved by a High Court judge.

This cannot possibly be Parliament at its best. Even if you are supportive of assisted suicide as a principle, as many genuinely seem to be, I cannot imagine looking at this process – the way it has unfurled with U-turns, rushed scrutiny and distorted hearings – and still thinking this is the way it should be done.

It is a Bill that would fundamentally change the way we assess our responsibilities to the vulnerable, infirm and elderly. It will change the assessment of health care from ‘Do No Harm’ to ‘Assist Death’, Labour MPs David Smith and Blair McDougall have pointed out – and I worry that it is something which will fundamentally fail the care shown towards those groups, instead piling on the pressure of whatever is most efficient to support their death.

I don’t want that option to become seen as the ‘right thing’ to do. An increasingly organised, advertised and funded option to unburden not only one’s family, but a health service struggling to provide palliative care, as it becomes ever more focused on death rather than help. It is not something to be feared but expected.

Look to Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal and its model frequently cited by campaigners here. A high proportion of those requesting assisted suicide do so because they feel a “burden” to their family. Look to the Netherlands, where assisted suicide accounts for one in twenty deaths and applications granted included one from a teenager with depression. Look to Canada, where a disabled man who feared eviction from social housing received a doctors’ permission to die.

Here there is already talk of an “anorexia loophole” in the Bill that would mean patients with severe eating disorders could be deemed eligible for assisted death if their physical decline – caused by a treatable mental illness – was judged to be life-threatening. How could we possibly have that be the case? 

If the End of Life Bill does manage to pass its final stages, there is a likelihood we’ll all be back here very soon when a new Private Members’ Bill is introduced to try to close all of the loopholes. 

With the law change to decriminalise abortion being voted on this week too, the Commons has seen itself descend to shambles when it comes to unbelievably important, life-altering, historic law changes made without proper process. In that case it was no consultation, no committee stage scrutiny, 46 minutes of backbench debate, and a closing speech by a minister who refused interventions.

Now it is a Private Members’ Bill that some elected representatives are hoping will be sorted out for them by members of the upper house. Come hell or high water, if the assisted suicide Bill is passed, it will come into fource within a maximum of four years time. Does this really sound like Parliament at its best?