UK politicians advance assisted dying bill to ease suffering of terminally ill patients

The Catholic Church opposed the bill, preferring instead to watch patients suffer as long as possible

This newsletter is free, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can use the button below to subscribe to Substack or use my usual Patreon page!

---

In a welcome move, the UK House of Commons has moved forward with legislation that would allow some terminally ill people to end life on their own terms instead of suffering needlessly because they’re forced by law to stay alive against their will.

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who sponsored this legislation (screenshot via The Independent)

The 330-275 vote came after five hours of debate and will now proceed to the next phase, where it’ll be scrutinized by politicians in committees and amendments can be proposed. (It’s unclear if the bill will make it through the more conservative House of Lords.)

As it stands, though, the “Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill” would apply to a select group of individuals in the worst situations. They must be over 18 and diagnosed with an illness that will end their life within six months. (Sensible.) Two doctors and a judge have to sign off on the request to end life at least 7 days apart. (Sensible but prolongs the pain.) And any medication must be self-administered, which excludes people without the capacity to do that. (Too narrow.)

The reason for all those requirements is to make sure people who are simply depressed, elderly, or pressured by those close to them into ending life for shady reasons aren’t able to take advantage of the opportunity. But a lot of people who could benefit from a “death with dignity” law would still be left behind. They may end up doing what many residents have done in the past: traveling to another country, like Switzerland, where these procedures are legal.

One proponent of the bill urged politicians to vote for it because the only current options for those who need the help are “suffering, Switzerland or suicide.” In England and Wales, assisting someone who wants to end life can currently land you up to 14 years in prison.

Despite the limitations, it’s an important step for legislation that has faced numerous hurdles every time it’s been proposed. The Labour Party didn’t even whip votes on this one:

The legislation was proposed by a Labour Party member of Parliament, Kim Leadbeater, but lawmakers were given the freedom to vote with their conscience, meaning the outcome was impossible to predict.

The outcome mirrored the general thinking of the public, which supports assisted dying in certain situations by a sizable majority. (In the chart below, blue represents support for such a law. Red signals opposition.)

Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, celebrated the vote as a necessary move in the name of humanity and compassion:

Parliament has taken a historic first step to meet the aspirations of the public, who overwhelmingly support having choice, dignity, and compassion at the end of their lives. We welcome this and look forward to working further on the legislation.

…

The fact of the matter is that assisted dying is already happening in this country. Some are travelling to Switzerland, if they have the money and mobility to do so. Others are dying in traumatic circumstances by suicide, assisted or otherwise. Many more are suffering greatly, even while receiving the best possible care. This vote shows that MPs see the need to introduce real safeguards to our law where there are currently none.

A poll commissioned by Humanists UK found even higher rates of support for this kind of legislation, with “83% of the non-religious and 65% of Christians support[ing] assisted dying.”

The opponents to this bill are your usual suspects: conservatives and Catholics, who reject the practice of assisted death and would rather see patients suffer from incurable diseases than allow them to seek peace. (Earlier this year, in Canada, where this procedure is legal, a woman who was taken to a Catholic hospital was forced to suffer instead because they refused to help her. Her family is suing the provincial government and the hospital.)

Sarah Mullally, the Bishop of London who oversees healthcare issues, called for “high quality palliative care” rather than allowing people to end their lives, but that assumes there’s a way to ease patients’ suffering in these situations. There isn’t. That’s why they should have this alternative option. Some Tories also called for improving the National Health Service instead of voting for bills like these, but that’s rich coming from a party that’s chronically underfunded the NHS while also moving the goalposts outside the stadium. Bishop Mark Davies also reacted to the vote by calling it a “dark day for our country.” They’re calling for changes to the bill that allow doctors and Church-owner facilities to refuse to participate in providing this care (i.e. conscientious objection).

That said, this was not a party line vote. Many Tories voted for the bill (including former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak) and many Labour Party members opposed it. There was enough support overall, though, to overcome the first big hurdle. As more members weigh in with amendments, there will hopefully be overwhelming public pressure on other politicians to make this a law.

---