The debate surrounding assisted suicide in the UK has taken a dramatic turn with the removal of judicial oversight from the proposed legislation. This move has sparked fierce criticism from MPs and opponents who argue it weakens crucial safeguards for vulnerable individuals. The bill's future hangs in the balance as former supporters reconsider their positions and calls for significant revisions intensify.
The legalisation of assisted suicide hangs in the balance following accusations that campaigners have significantly weakened proposed safeguards. MPs who previously supported the bill are reconsidering their stance amid a wave of criticism over the removal of judicial oversight in the process. Opponents argue that this change undermines the core promise of the legislation, which was championed by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater.
Leadbeater had previously assured the Commons that judicial oversight would provide the most robust protection against vulnerable individuals being coerced into ending their lives. However, her revised proposals, dubbed 'judge plus', involve lawyers, psychiatrists, and social workers instead in approving applications from terminally ill people seeking assisted death.Only 28 former supporters need to vote against the bill when it returns to the Commons in April for it to be defeated. Reform's Lee Anderson became the first MP to publicly withdraw his backing, stating that the bill's credibility has diminished. He expressed concerns about its hurried passage and questioned how he could support it at the third reading. His colleague Rupert Lowe echoed these sentiments, stating that the bill's handling has been characterized as bullying, unfair, and reckless. Unless significant changes are made, he vowed to vote against it.Other senior MPs who voted for the bill in November, including former ministers Sir David Davis and Alistair Carmichael, indicated they would carefully review the new proposals before making a final decision. Meanwhile, ten Labour MPs who opposed the bill in the autumn issued a scathing critique of Leadbeater's handling of the issue. They highlighted the initial promise of High Court scrutiny for each assisted dying application, which was presented as a key safeguard for vulnerable individuals. They expressed frustration that this commitment had been abandoned, characterizing the process as chaotic and the bill as flawed, rushed, and unfit for purpose. Opposition MP Danny Kruger condemned the removal of High Court approval, calling it a key safeguard that was used to persuade MPs to support the assisted suicide bill. He criticized the proposed panel, which lacks a judge and operates in private, without hearing opposing arguments.Leadbeater defended her position, arguing that public proceedings would be held while respecting patient confidentiality. She asserted that involving three experts in the scrutiny process represents a positive change. Layla Moran, Chair of the Health Select Committee, also expressed support for the amendment, believing it provides a workable way to ensure strong safeguards remain in place without overburdening the courts. However, further criticism arose as the MPs handpicked by Leadbeater to scrutinize the bill rejected attempts to strengthen protections for vulnerable individuals. Amendments aimed at raising the threshold for mental capacity before approving a patient's request for assisted dying were voted down by the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill committee.
Assisted Suicide UK Legislation Political Controversy Safeguard Removal Vulnerable Individuals Judicial Oversight Labour Party Mps Public Debate
United Kingdom Latest News, United Kingdom Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Assisted Suicide Bill in Doubt After Campaigners Water Down SafeguardsThe UK's assisted suicide bill faces uncertainty as proposed changes to safeguard vulnerable individuals have been criticized. Critics argue that the removal of judicial oversight weakens protections, raising concerns about potential coercion.
Read more »
Assisted Dying Bill: Timeline and SafeguardsProfessor Sir Chris Whitty, England's chief medical officer, believes assisted dying legislation could be implemented within two years. He emphasizes that the process should not be rushed and advocates for simplicity in safeguards. The Bill, which could allow terminally ill adults to legally end their lives, is currently under scrutiny by a parliamentary committee.
Read more »
Social workers to sit on 'death panels' in Labour MPs watered-down assisted dying BillKim Leadbeater claims extra safeguarding has added 'real improvements' to proposed assisted dying bill.
Read more »
Assisted Dying Bill: Judge Plus System Proposed Amidst Legal System ConcernsThe Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, aiming to legalize assisted dying for terminally ill adults in England and Wales, may see changes to its original plan involving High Court judge approval. Concerns about the potential burden on the legal system have prompted Labour MP Kim Leadbeater to propose a 'judge plus' system, featuring a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission led by a judge. This commission would involve psychiatrists, social workers, and independent doctors to ensure robust safeguards and voluntary decision-making.
Read more »
Assisted Dying Bill: Judge Approval Could Be DroppedKim Leadbeater, Labour MP, proposes a 'judge plus' system for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill to avoid overwhelming the legal system. The proposed system involves a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission led by a High Court judge, with a panel reviewing applications for assisted death. The changes aim to balance patient autonomy with robust safeguards, addressing concerns about coercion and capacity.
Read more »
Assisted Dying Bill Amended: Multi-Disciplinary Panels to Review CasesLabour MP Kim Leadbeater proposes amendments to her Assisted Dying Bill, replacing High Court judge approval with multi-disciplinary panels of experts. This 'judge plus' system aims to strengthen safeguards against coercion while involving professionals like psychiatrists and social workers. Critics argue the change weakens safeguards, calling it 'a disgrace' and 'badly thought out legislation'.
Read more »