As discussed in this space before, a debate of enormous implications is taking place in the United Kingdom over assisted suicide. Late last year, the British House of Commons voted 330-275 to move along what is known as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, or the Leadbeater bill after the name of the Labour Party member of Parliament who is the measure’s prime sponsor. In the British parliamentary system, a vote on the bill on its first readings does not suffice to pass it. Instead, it moves on to a committee stage in the Commons where public and expert testimony can be provided and the bill can be amended. That step is now in process, and suffice it to say, fresh questions and doubts have been raised about the legislation’s scope and the quality of its safeguards.

While bills initially approved in Parliament are not typically dramatically revised, one particular proposed change has sparked sharp criticism — an amendment to delete the requirement that approval of “requests” for assisted suicide ultimately come from High Court judges. Now that requirement appears likely to be shelved, with the suggestion from MP Leadbeater that the final call on assisted suicide come from a panel composed of a lawyer, a social worker, and a psychiatrist. MP Danny Kruger, a strong opponent of assisted suicide, has condemned the amendment, noting that it calls for the panel proceeding to occur in private and allows for no presentation of opposition to the suicide request.

Columnist Sam Carlisle, writing in The Sun UK Edition, also criticized the panel, speaking of her own mother, now in the latter stages of fatal dementia, and her disabled daughter, of whom she said, “Professional judgment has consistently failed her” in prior care decisions. Carlisle argues that the End of Life bill “gives the message that it prioritizes the right to die over the right to live.” She cites recent experience during the COVID epidemic in Britain when “do not resuscitate” orders were placed on people with disabilities without any consultation with the patients or their families.

The lack of trust in the parliamentary voices for the bill has other roots in recent history. The Labour Party came to its current power in a landslide election held on July 4 of last year. The election marked the party’s return to majority for the first time since 2005, ending the rule of the Conservative Party then led by Rishi Sunak.

The first six months in power for Labour have been difficult. The most corrosive issue has been a continuing controversy over “grooming gangs” in Midland cities that stand accused of rape and murder of minor girls. Prime Minister Keir Starmer is the focus of charges that he failed to pursue cases against the perpetrators on grounds of political correctness and multiculturalism — the men involved are Pakistani Muslim migrants to a nation facing severe tensions over a range of immigration issues. Starmer and his political allies have resisted the conduct of a national inquiry over the crimes, which stretch back several decades. The situation has contributed to erosions in public trust in official bodies, no matter who has been in power.

The core issue in the suicide debate remains respect for the sanctity of human life at its frailest and most vulnerable stages. In September 2021, the British Medical Association abandoned its opposition to assisted suicide laws and assumed a position of neutrality regarding them. This differs from the position of the American Medical Association which has reaffirmed its opposition to assisted suicide on several occasions. For example, its resolution of November 2023 states, “Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks. Euthanasia could readily be extended to incompetent patients and other vulnerable populations.” The official AMA policy notes another factor, a subtle one, that might be in play in these contexts — the natural tendency of a physician to withdraw emotionally from a patient at his or her latter hours, when good communication and attentive support are needed instead. True palliative care that addresses psychological and physical pain is essential.

The committee review of the Leadbeater Act has also been critiqued for lacking opportunities for key testimony. The committee has met six times since January 21 (including on February 12) with two more sittings scheduled for February 25 and 26. Kruger has pointed out the imbalances that have excluded testimony from groups like the British Geriatrics Society (BGS), which is dedicated to the improvement of health care and social services for older Britons. The BGS concludes, “Notwithstanding the many exemplary services and examples of good care for older people, the overall picture is one of under-resourcing of health and social care, including the provision of specialist and generalist palliative care.”

The BGS does not believe that a legal proposal like the Leadbeater bill can fix a problem that is ultimately systemic. Other authors point to the pending national report on palliative care resourcing that is due later this year. London Times columnist Janice Turner, who explains that she could support assisted suicide in some circumstances, cites the pendency of this report as grounds for waiting on adoption of any legislation legalizing assisted suicide. She says, “Palliative care will never be perfect but a universal minimum standard could be put in place first.”

Efforts to amend the bill and strengthen its patient-protective provisions are meeting stiff resistance. As Kruger pointed out on February 11, “I don’t think [the bill] would have passed the House of Commons if this new system” of non-judicial review panels was in place. Other MPs are expressing deep concerns about the prospect of a severely weakened bill and suggesting the outcome at the next reading in the Commons may be different. Labour MP Anna Dixon told The Guardian newspaper, “If the proponents of the bill can U-turn on something as fundamental as the role of the high court, it seriously calls into question whether the rest of the bill is fit for purpose.” Dixon calls for the bill, which was introduced as a private members’ bill, to be converted to a government bill, which would require a formal review of the measure and reintroduction as the Labour Party’s own proposal.

The long and short is that the debate on the Terminally Ill Adults bill is far from over. The full bill as it now stands will be presented on February 13, but a final vote in committee will not occur until after Parliament’s February recess. There are some 350 amendments to consider in the current process, and the soonest the bill could return to the House of Commons for the final time is April 25.

Meanwhile, British pro-family and faith organizations continue to speak out against assisted suicide, including Right to Life UK and the Christian Institute. These groups continue to focus on the impact of growing disrespect for life in modern society, a disrespect with harrowing consequences for the disabled and the elderly. RTL UK cites the testimony of Fazilet Hadi of Disability Rights UK, who told the 23-member Parliamentary body, “I do think the bill will have a serious and profound negative impact against the valuing of disabled people’s lives.”

As American legal scholar Wesley Smith points out, every nation — and U.S. states alike — that has legalized assisted suicide has faced a relaxation of the conditions designed to protect the most vulnerable — individuals with depression, financial pressures, disabilities, and so on. The most recent is Vermont, where patients can already obtain a lethal pack of pills via Zoom or Skype and the latest bill would allow the drugs to be distributed by non-physicians. The slippery slope has prevailed in the ever-evolving world of assisted suicide. The experience in the Parliamentary committee shows that the slide needn’t wait for enactment of the bill and relaxed vigilance — it can occur in the very process of enacting the bill and tossing aside the “safeguards” it purported to embrace.

Lord David Alton, the leading advocate for life in the U.K. for decades and a veteran of many a debate, summed up the alternatives at hand: “We need bills to assist and help people to live — not a conveyor belt to the cemetery.”