MPs need assurance assisted dying Bill compatible with human rights – regulator
The Equality and Human Rights Commission said Parliament needs adequate time to scrutinise the proposed legislation.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Parliament should be given more information and assurance that the assisted dying Bill is compatible with equality and human rights, a regulator has warned.
MPs in the House of Commons will debate and are expected to vote on proposed legislation on Friday for the first time in almost a decade.
Labour backbencher Kim Leadbeater has said her Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is about giving choice to dying people and is “robust”, with potentially the “strictest protections” against coercion anywhere in the world, requiring sign-off by two doctors and a High Court judge.
Parliament has a responsibility to ensure equality and human rights concerns are at the forefront of their decision making, I urge MPs to carefully consider our briefing
But the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which said it is neutral on assisted dying, warned that as it stands there has been “insufficiently detailed analysis” of human rights considerations regarding the Bill.
In a briefing sent to MPs, the watchdog noted there has been no equality impact statement and that, as it is a private members’ bill, there is no requirement for a minister to declare its compatibility with human rights.
The EHRC said: “We welcome the reference to human rights law in the Bill’s explanatory notes.
“However, we consider this to provide insufficiently detailed analysis of the human rights considerations relevant to this Bill.
“We would strongly recommend that, at the earliest opportunity, Parliament is provided with further information and assurance about the Bill’s compatibility with equality and human rights.
“This could be supported by scrutiny conducted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.”
The regulator also said Parliament will need “adequate time, expertise and the supporting materials required to effectively scrutinise” the Bill, which would go to a committee if it passed Friday’s vote.
Some MPs and campaigners have raised concerns that the Bill has been rushed and will not get the scrutiny it requires – an argument rejected by Ms Leadbeater who insisted it is likely to be subject to more scrutiny because of the level of public debate on the divisive issue.
Among its suggestions, the watchdog said Parliament might wish to consider whether there is “a need” to provide for conscientious objection to judges.
Currently, the Bill states that doctors are not obligated to participate in the provision of assisted dying but the same does not apply to judges who will have final sign-off on decisions.
The regulator also said the Bill could “particularly impact disabled people”, pointing out “there is not always a clear line between terminal illness and disability”.
It said: “Parliament should note that the exclusion of disability as a standalone criterion for accessing assisted dying does not mean that the rights of, and protections for, disabled people do not need to be considered in relation to this Bill.”
Paralympian Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson warned that disabled people are “really worried” about a Bill she described as “very loose” in terms of safeguards.
The former athlete, who would have a vote on the Bill if it passed through to the Lords, said she does not believe there are safeguards which can guarantee protection for vulnerable people.
She told the PA news agency: “I think there will always be vulnerable people. I can’t see safeguards that would be OK, that wouldn’t risk some people having their lives ended without them wanting to.”
The Bill, which covers England and Wales only, proposes terminally ill adults with less than six months to live who have a settled wish to die should have the option to do so.
Baroness Grey-Thompson said she has concerns about “how unscrupulous people would use (a new law)”, and argued that terminal illness could be open to interpretation.
She said: “If someone like me, as a paraplegic, got a pressure sore and it wasn’t healing, I would fit within that six-month diagnosis.”
The EHRC also warned about the need for those involved in an assisted dying process to have “a full and clear understanding of the law around mental capacity”, and for safeguards ensuring whether someone has a settled wish to end their life “is not prejudiced by assumptions based on the age of the person”.
None of the fears that were put forward as reasons not to change the law have been realised
The regulator warned of the regional variability in the quality of and access to end-of-life care, saying current disparities “could put some people in a position where they consider assisted dying where they may not otherwise have done so if there was a viable alternative”.
EHRC chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner said it is “essential” that any assisted dying law “upholds everyone’s rights”.
She said: “It must protect and respect the beliefs of individuals, as well as those of medical professionals.
“Comprehensive safeguards must ensure that those faced with this difficult decision have capacity and take their decision free from coercion.
“Parliament has a responsibility to ensure equality and human rights concerns are at the forefront of their decision-making, I urge MPs to carefully consider our briefing.”
Meanwhile, politicians behind Australian assisted dying laws have written to MPs saying that end-of-life care there is “now safer and fairer than ever before”.
Six parliamentarians who led reforms in their states insisted “none of the fears that were put forward as reasons not to change the law have been realised”.
Lord David Cameron has become the first among the UK’s living former prime ministers to say he would back the Bill if it made it to the Lords, describing it as “not about ending life, it is about shortening death”.
Dame Esther Rantzen, who is terminally ill and has argued strongly for a change in the law, wrote to MPs this week, urging them to attend the debate and vote on the “vital life-and-death issue”.
A tally by PA, as of early on Thursday, indicated around 90 MPs so far intend to support the Bill, with around 80 opposing it.
Of the 650 MPs in the Commons, most have yet to reveal publicly how they will vote, including Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who supported a change in the law in 2015.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is among those who have stated they remain undecided as they study the Bill’s contents.
The Cabinet is split on the issue, with Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood intending to vote no, while Energy Secretary and former Labour leader Ed Miliband is supporting the Bill alongside Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy.