Assisted dying cases will not have to be signed off by High Court judges under changes to landmark legislation proposed by the author of the bill.
The original terminally ill adults (end of life) private members’ bill set out that two doctors must approve a terminally ill person’s request to end their own life and a High Court judge must sign off the decisions after speaking to one of the medics.
The provision faced strong opposition from several figures in the justice sector, who argued that judges were being asked to “rubber stamp” a decision that they had little involvement with.
Others argued that it would increase pressure on the justice system at a time when there were severe backlogs in the courts.
Under new proposals from Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, the author of the bill, a person’s application to end their own life would be reviewed by a panel of psychiatrists and social workers, chaired by a senior legal figure who is not necessarily a judge.
A person would only be granted permission to end their life if the panel agreed to the request. The panel’s decision could in some cases be reviewed by the High Court.
A Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission — led by a High Court judge, a King’s Counsel, or another senior legal professional — would select the panel for each terminally ill individual and oversee all cases and data relating to use of the new legislation.
“This bill already contains the strongest safeguards anywhere in the world, but I promised to give close attention to the advice we have received on how the bill could be made even stronger, and that is what I have done,” Leadbeater said.
An amendment to the bill is expected to be tabled this week to reflect the changes.
The bill would allow terminally ill people who have been given six months or less to live to end their own lives, and would exclude people with disabilities or mental illness. It passed its second reading in November by 330 votes to 275 with all parties giving their MPs a free vote.
This means that if 28 MPs switch from yes to no at the third reading on April 25 it would torpedo the legislation.
One Labour MP involved in the bill said some former supporters had already cooled on the legislation since the Times reported two weeks ago that the role of High Court judges was likely to be diluted.
“There were quite a few people who voted for this in November just to give it a chance who won’t vote for it next time. I don’t think this will ultimately become law,” they said. “The role of judges was something that reassured many waverers and without it they’ll find it easier to switch their vote.”
