At present, the Labour Party is experiencing internal divisions over proposed laws to legalize assisted dying. This situation has not been improved by the appearance of a critical communique from four of the party's Members of Parliament.
These MPs take issue with the bill's proponent, Kim Leadbeater, and assert that she has not presented the expert testimony upon which the legislation is founded in a fair and evenhanded manner.
The Guardian newspaper reported that the four Labour MPs sent around a long email to other MPs, laying out their worries about Leadbeater' social media communications. Those communications, the MPs said, concentrated on only certain bits of evidence and, thus, misrepresented the picture. They pointed out that the parliamentary committee reviewing the legislation wasn't being given the whole story.
The email was signed by the Treasury select committee chair, Meg Hillier, and her fellow MPs James Frith, Antonia Bance, and Jess Asato. Each voted against the bill in November.
In this email letter, the members of Parliament argue that the evidence the committee reviewed was far too favorable to the bill's supporters and that this slant basically negated the objectivity one would expect in the legislative process. They then go on to say that if the committee had done a better job of enlisting a range of expert opinion, especially on key aspects of the legislation, such as coercive control we would all be in a better position to understand its real-world implications.
An up-to-date YouGov survey, which was commissioned by Dignity in Dying, reveals that 67% of the Conservative Party members support law reform that would allow terminally ill, mentally competent adults to have autonomy over the way they die. Conversely, only 20% of those surveyed opposed such a change in the law, while 13% said they were not really for or against it.
More than 200 amendments have been proposed to the legislative proposal. The proposal itself passed with a 55-vote majority in November. Lots of folks anticipate that hundreds more will be introduced in the weeks to come. Even though passage of the proposal seems almost certain, several committee members have expressed legitimate concerns over the lack of time to thoroughly understand the proposed amendments.
This week, Leadbeater has rolled out a series of amendments to the bill that the government has drafted. These amendments indicate that the government is taking a conversational approach in addressing potential deficiencies in the bill. When it comes to the subject matter, the government is still maintaining a position of neutrality.
The committee has two main areas of contention. The first is the High Court's jurisdiction in the process of soliciting an assisted death. The second is the applicability of the bill. Should its provisions extend beyond the terminally ill and those with less than six months to live? Should we call it death with dignity or death by committee?
An amendment to eliminate the requirement for judicial approval from a High Court judge is advocated for by several committee members, including prominent Conservative supporter Kit Malthouse. They propose the establishment of an expert panel that could much more efficiently and more effectively adjudicate these types of cases. This panel could comprise a specialized attorney, a social worker, and a psychiatrist with mental capacity and coercion expertise.
Another amendment that has received considerable backing from the proponents of the committee was put forward by Liberal Democrat MP Tom Gordon. It has received support not only from Labour and Green MPs but also from Conservative ones. This amendment seeks to allow people with neurodegenerative conditions, like Parkinson’s disease, to access assisted dying if their prognosis is 12 months to live, alongside the bill's pre-existing provision for terminal illnesses with a six-month prognosis. Leadbeater has previously dismissed the possibility of such a modification.
Gordon stated, "The final six months may prove too late for individuals with neurodegenerative conditions to navigate the bureaucratic process of application."
Rachel Hopkins, a Labour MP who serves on the committee, expressed her backing for the proposed amendment. "I recognize the necessity of this amendment. Our assisted dying legislation should embody compassion, and where individuals with varying terminal conditions require distinct approaches, I am in favor of that."
The committee's makeup and the ways in which it has gathered evidence have led to considerable scrutiny of Leadbeater.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/116678/pdf/
https://witnessdirectory.com/signup.php
