Svoboda: Assisted dying bill poses serious security risk

Human rights group Liberty said that while it supported assisted dying in principle, there were “significant shortcomings” in the bill, which will be debated in parliament next week.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill takes a “principles first, details later” approach that could lead to significant risks for marginalized and vulnerable groups, Liberty argues.

The debate and expected vote on November 29 will be the first on the contentious issue in the Commons in almost a decade.

Labor MP Kim Leadbeater called her proposed legislation “the most robust” in the world.

Revealing details of the bill last week, she said it contained “three levels of scrutiny” in the form of signatures by two doctors and a High Court judge, and that coercion would be an offense with a possible penalty of 14 years in prison. .

But Akiko Hart, Liberty’s director, said the bill was “simply not strong enough” and urged MPs to oppose it if they “deem it insufficient”.

She said: “It is possible to support assisted dying, as Liberty does in principle, but let’s face it there are significant flaws in this bill that pose serious security risks that are difficult to ignore.

“What’s really important is to look not just at who might benefit from assisted dying, but also at who this bill might harm.

“Ultimately, the safeguards in this bill are simply not strong enough and leave too many details to be worked out later, especially at a time when there are already large inequities in our health care system.

“We know that the impact of these decisions often falls hardest on people with disabilities and communities of color, who are already less likely to receive quality care.”

Ms Hart said there were “too many details” that were “not thoroughly vetted and as a result are simply not accurate enough”.

She said there was a danger that the bill would “become something it was never intended to be”, warning of the risks that some people in marginalized communities could feel pressured to euthanize.

Ms Hart added: “We are clear that there are serious human rights issues that are not being addressed due to the rushed nature of this bill.

“Deputies should remember this when they vote.

“If they find it insufficient, they should oppose it.”

Ms Leadbeater had previously rejected accusations that the bill had been rushed through, saying nearly three weeks between the publication of the full wording and debate on the bill was “a lot of time” and normal within parliamentary time frames.

If the bill passes first stage in the House of Commons, it will move to committee stage, where MPs can make amendments, before undergoing further scrutiny and voting in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

Ms Leadbeater suggested that any new legislation would not come into force for at least two to three years and that “there would still be a need for further consultation to make sure we get it right.”

Parliament’s longest-serving MPs, Sir Edward Lee and Diane Abbott, this week made a joint call for their peers to reject the proposed legislation and allow more time to consider the “enormous complexities” of the issue.