Update on Assisted Dying Bill: High Court Judge Approval of Applications Removed

The debate over the legalisation of Assisted Dying in England and Wales has developed further, yet it remains a deeply divisive issue among MPs. Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP for Spen Valley, has emerged as a prominent advocate for the cause.

Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill proposes that adults diagnosed with a terminal illness and expected to live for less than six months should have the option to seek medical assistance in ending their lives.

A significant amendment has been made to the bill following a review by the committee, who have decided to remove the requirement for a High Court Judge’s approval of applications. Initially, this clause was seen as a crucial safeguard, making the proposed legislation one of the strictest of its kind. However, concerns raised by the Ministry of Justice and senior Judges, regarding the potential pressure on the courts, led to a reassessment of this provision.

In place of judicial approval, Leadbeater has proposed a three-person panel to review applications for assisted dying. This panel would consist of a senior legal figure, a psychiatrist, and a social worker. The details of this new approach are expected to be finalised in the coming months.

The committee voted 15 to 7 in favour of removing the judicial requirement, and Leadbeater has argued that this change will make the law “even more robust”. Leadbeater added that “it is much safer than the current ban on assisted dying, which leaves terminally ill people and their families without any protections at all”.

Leadbeater also highlighted the cross-party support for the bill's safeguards, emphasising that, despite differing views on the legislation itself, there is a shared commitment to ensuring proper protection for terminally ill adults. Leadbeater stated; “that tells me that whatever our views on the Bill itself, there is a shared commitment to getting protections for terminally ill adults right. That means we are doing our job”.

However, not all MPs are in favour of this change. A group of 26 Labour MPs, many of whom opposed the bill at its second reading, have voiced concerns over the removal of the judicial requirement. They argue that it breaks promises made by supporters of the bill, undermines protections for vulnerable individuals, and exposes flaws in the legislative process. In a joint statement, the MPs said that “it does not strengthen judicial safeguards but instead creates an unaccountable body, and to suggest otherwise misrepresents what is being proposed”.

As the bill continues to be debated, the decision to replace judicial approval with a panel of professionals is likely to remain a key point of contention, influencing the direction the legislation will take in the future.

Moreover, with the final outcome still uncertain, the discussions surrounding assisted dying continue to develop and regardless of how things unfold, it is important to have your affairs in order, as we can never predict when our time will come.