Assisted dying cannot be decided upon in an unseemly rush

More time for debate would indeed be appropriate

Copy link
twitter
facebook
whatsapp
email
Copy link
twitter
facebook
whatsapp
email
Later this month, MPs will be asked to vote on the legalisation of assisted dying. In recognition of the complexities of this issue, Sir Keir Starmer has promised his party a free vote on Kim Leadbeater’s Private Members’ Bill, as have the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
What Sir Keir is apparently less willing to offer is government time to properly debate the Bill. MPs will have had a little under three weeks to familiarise themselves with its 38 pages and to scrutinise it before it is debated in the Commons. 
As Health Secretary Wes Streeting has pointed out, delivering assisted dying will not be cost free, and may result in cuts to health service provision elsewhere. Moreover, there is a chilling “slippery slope” argument where some may “opt for assisted dying” to save money for “relatives or the NHS”.
Such unintended consequences deserve to be fully considered before MPs cast their votes. As things stand, however, Members will have just five hours of debate in the Second Reading stage to address fundamental concerns about the design of the proposed legislation. As Kemi Badenoch’s spokesman has said, it is clear that “more time would be appropriate”.
Ms Leadbeater insists that her Bill is the “best possible”, containing “the strictest protections and safeguards of any legislation anywhere in the world”, and has urged MPs to vote in favour rather than risk a decade passing before another opportunity to change the law arises.
However, as we have seen elsewhere, well-intentioned legislation can subsequently be expanded by litigation and interpretation. Such risks should be properly debated to begin with, rather than set to the side in a heedless rush.
Copy link
twitter
facebook
whatsapp
email