Is the latest assisted dying bill likely to be made law?

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will be brought before the Commons in its entirety in the coming days, with a debate in the chamber scheduled for the end of the month. As it comes from the elected chamber, it will probably be similar to – but supersede and render redundant – an equivalent bill that is currently in the House of Lords, introduced by Charlie Falconer, a former lord chancellor.

The Commons version is a private member’s bill led by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP for Spen Valley. There will obviously be much focus on the details and safeguards in the bill, but there are increasing signs that the way the issue is being discussed may hamper its progress...

It will amend existing legislation, such as the Suicide Act 1961 and the 2009 Coroners and Justice Act. The aim is to allow people to end their lives, and for others to be permitted to help them to do so, in certain specific circumstances and with safeguards and conditions attached. Leadbeater says that her bill will boast the “strictest protections and safeguards of any legislation anywhere in the world”. This will probably include limits around eligibility in terms of life expectancy, mental competence, two medical opinions, and High Court approval.

It is designed to offer relief, lawfully, to people who find their suffering unbearable even with the best palliative care. The cause has received publicity thanks to the campaigning work undertaken by Esther Rantzen, who has terminal lung cancer. The prime minister said he had promised that the issue would be aired in parliament.

Leadbeater says of her colleagues: “I believe when they study it in detail, they will see that the bill offers hope to those terminally ill people with a clear, informed and settled wish to have a better death, while at the same time protecting all those approaching the end of their life from coercion or pressure to make a decision that isn’t right for them.”

The second reading will be on 29 November, and this will be the first opportunity for parliamentarians to raise questions and objections or voice support. It will be a free vote, meaning that politicians will not be whipped and will therefore be free to vote however they wish, guided by their own conscience. Some will consult their constituents. It should represent an opportunity for the Commons to show itself at its best as a debating chamber, blending passion and emotion with fact and expert opinion.

Whereas the Leadbeater bill seemed very likely to pass when first mooted, not least because Keir Starmer has voiced support for the principle and voted for a similar bill in the past, some MPs have voiced serious concerns. For instance, Wes Streeting, the health secretary, and Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader, have stressed that assisted dying should not become an alternative in the case of inadequate palliative care; they also fear “coercion” of the vulnerable. Many MPs will have personal experiences of their own, or of those they know, that they can bring to bear.

The Commons also has a cohort of members, both Labour and Conservative, with medical experience, and some have backed the move. They’ve stated: “For too many years, palliative staff, GPs and community teams have been caught between the law (which forbids any assistance in hastening the end of life) and our compassionate care for patients who we know wish us to curtail their suffering.”

A more general feeling is that such a complicated and momentous move should come from a bill that has been allocated government time rather than a private member’s bill, which would afford it lengthier scrutiny – even though, for example, the first reform in decades of the law on abortion was achieved by David Steel’s Abortion Act of 1967.

It could be close on second reading, but the chances are that it will go on to be subject to detailed examination and amendment, with the decisive vote coming much later, at third reading. Hopefully, the sensitive and deeply personal question of assisted dying won’t degenerate into just another battle in our incessant “culture wars”.