The crisis in the care system creates some terrible incentives.
The Coalition for Frontline Care, representing leading health and social care organisations with a combined workforce of 3 million, calls the bill “unworkable...and naïve”.
The bill allows it (“Mum, have you considered…”). Doctors can raise AS unprompted even if you have learning disabilities. Some advertising is allowed.
Bill supporter Alexandra Mullock told the committee the bill was weak on this:
F is for False Prognosis.
The bill’s proponents say AS is only for people who are dying. But the 6-month test is so unreliable that clinicians compare it to a “coin toss”; a fifth of those who are given six months to live are still around 3 years later.
Not that we know if they would deliver it (they haven’t commented. I understand Serco have ruled out being involved).
But there’s a decent chance one or other big outsourcing firm will be involved. And the bill has no profit cap and no transparency requirements.
H is for Henry VIII Powers.
These are areas where ministers can amend primary legislation by fiat.
There are five of them in the bill, and 38 ministerial powers in all: as Paul Kohler MP complains here, “in large part the safeguards are left to be decided by regulations.”
I is for Institutional Opt-Out.
While individuals can opt out, hospices and care homes cannot. Leadbeater says there are “considerable harms that can come with the ability of institutions to opt out”.
Palliative care leaders say this could be disastrous:
The criminologist says: “Unless we do take this incredibly seriously, this bill is going to be the worst thing potentially that we have ever done to domestic abuse victims.”
@STagainstDA_ have given similar warnings.
K is for Kin, Next Of.
The bill has no requirement to inform family at any point; nothing in the bill gives family a right to contribute to the decision-making process.
The first you could learn of your 18-year-old’s AS is when you’re asked to make arrangements for the body.
L is for Lethal Drugs.
Internationally, AS/death penalty drugs are highly controversial; but we do not know which ones will be used, and a host of safeguards—including a requirement for the MHRA to licence them—were rejected in committee.
The bill relies on it; but the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Psychiatrists say the MCA is the wrong tool to use. Amendments to tighten the capacity criterion were rejected.
1) Could our universal health system mean we accidentally create an AS conveyor belt? 2) What about Lord Bethell’s concerns here? 3) Could the powers in Clause 41, as Dame Siobhain McDonagh warns, be “the Trojan Horse that breaks the NHS”?
Gordon Brown argues (see below) that there is no real choice “if the alternative option, the freedom to draw on high-quality end-of-life care, is not available.”
The BMA’s ARM meeting voted this week to back an amendment to tackle this:
Of all the bill’s critics—Disability Rights UK, Association for Palliative Medicine, @GeriSoc, @RCPhysicians, Liberty, STADA, Beat—@rcpsych’s objections are especially telling, as the panels rely on psychiatrists to be involved:
According to some legal scholars—including Alex Ruck Keene KC, who’s neutral on the bill—the ECtHR might well require us to expand the law to other forms of “intolerable suffering”, eg disability or mental illness.
Under the bill, the doctors’ and panel’s decisions—Is it terminal illness? Is there coercion and capacity?—are only subject to a “balance of probabilities” test: are they 51% likely?
Ruth Hughes KC, a leading barrister in this area (and neutral on the bill), says in written evidence that, without more safeguards, the bill would be “profoundly disturbing and wrong” because of how it enables financial abuse.
X is for (cut me some slack here) ex-High Court judge Sir James Munby.
He says the panel has a “wholly inadequate procedure” regarding evidence-gathering, evidence-testing, secrecy, and appeals; and that “the Bill still falls lamentably short of providing adequate safeguards.”
Y is for Year-On-Year Analysis.
If AS becomes a national scandal needing a public inquiry (as a few observers have predicted), what will be the early warning signs?
The bill lacks detailed reporting requirements, though Sarah Olney MP has proposed some:
The bill must commence—in full—4 years after it passes. Will the NHS be ready? Will palliative care provision, hospitals, prisons, mental health services...?
Many MPs objected to this; one was so concerned he switched from Aye to No:
A brief fact-check of Lord Falconer’s speech this morning, some of which was misleading or at least missing important context:
1. “The government’s own estimate is that...less than 1% of deaths would be assisted after ten years.”
That’s because the civil servants imported the 1% figure from Oregon, which, respectfully, was a very strange decision. (NB in Quebec it’s 7 per cent.)
2. Falconer opened with a story about “faecal vomit”.
Obviously can’t comment on the specific case. But experts in end-of-life care have repeatedly, forcefully complained about politicians presenting this as a typical death or an argument for law change:
On May 13, defending the assisted suicide bill he is sponsoring in the Lords, Lord Falconer told Newsnight:
“It is hard to imagine a more safeguarded process.”
20 safeguards rejected by Falconer’s allies:
1. Doctors to ask applicants why they want an assisted suicide.
Rejected by pro-bill MPs in committee, partly on the grounds that “it’s none of your business.”
2. Applicants to get a guaranteed meeting with a palliative care specialist.
Rejected by pro-bill MPs – including care minister Stephen Kinnock, who raised a “concern” that it “would increase demand for palliative care specialists”.
“Let’s be very very clear,” Kim Leadbeater told the House of Commons on November 29 last year. “The model that is being proposed here…is nothing like what happens in Canada.”
Here are fifteen important ways in which the Leadbeater bill resembles Canada’s disastrous model:
(Canadian details taken from this extraordinary @TheAtlantic story: )
A month on from the Commons vote on assisted suicide, it’s clear that quite a few MPs were confused about the bill or influenced by misinformation.
Here are 10 examples:
1. Janet Daby MP says she was reassured because there would be “further psychiatric assessment” in the event of concerns about a patient’s “mental health”.
This is completely untrue—the lack of such assessment is one reason the Royal College of Psychiatrists oppose the bill.
2. Jim Dickson MP told the Commons:
“In the words of the Impact Assessment on the bill now, it says we have the strongest safeguards in this bill of any jurisdiction in the world.”
No phrase anything like this appears anywhere in the Impact Assessment.
1. Fact check: Kevin McKenna MP says of the panel:
“This reflects the best practice…that we have a multidisciplinary team.”
But the experts invited by Kim Leadbeater have said the panel falls far short of good clinical practice, and is *not* a proper multidisciplinary team.
2. Palliative care specialist @doctor_oxford, who was invited to give evidence to the committee by Kim Leadbeater, has said the panel is not an MDT and in fact betrays “a gross misunderstanding” of what an MDT is.
3. Glyn Berry of the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers, who also gave evidence at the sponsor’s invitation, has also said the panel falls far short.
1. What happens, under the assisted suicide bill, if someone requests lethal drugs *because* they feel like a burden?
2. The first thing to say is that—if they have a 6-month prognosis—they absolutely qualify.
Here Kim Leadbeater confirms the point: if your sole motive is altruistic—i.e. “others would be better off if I was dead”—the doctors/panel don’t have any freedom to refuse your request.
3. Leadbeater hopes there would be a “complex” conversation, the idea being presumably that people will have a chance to rethink if they really are a burden.
However, she rejected an amendment which would have required doctors to ask “why” someone is seeking assisted suicide…