Assisted suicide discriminates against people with disabilities. MPs must vote against it

The euphemistically titled Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is returning to the House of Commons for it’s second reading. But the proposed legislation is incredibly dangerous, as many disability campaign groups are at pains to point out.

Groups such as Disabled People Against Cuts, Disability Rights UK and Not Dead Yet UK claim they have been “ignored” in the debate, and that the Bill violates the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People (UNCRPD). Two compalinants are even prepared to take their fight to the court.

Our recent legal review strongly supports their argument. Prepared by Tom Cross KC and barrister Ruth Kennedy, it concluded that the Bill is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) because, among its many other flaws, “it contains no adequate safeguard protecting the position of those with disabilities.”

In unusually stark language, Cross and Kennedy have highlighted the particular vulnerability of people with serious mental health conditions, including bipolar disorder, depression and autism, in which “suicidal ideation is more likely, and who are, because of that feature of their disability, more likely to express a clear and settled wish to die”.

Preventing due process

Leadbeater’s Private Member’s Bill has not been subject to the usual process in respect of human rights compliance. Cross and Kennedy point out that this means “MPs have had access to less information and assessment than that with which they would ordinarily be provided”. But worryingly, rather than asking: ‘How can we address this defect?’, supporters of the Bill have simply tried to dismiss these concerns.

Helping people to die is much cheaper than helping them to live

Perhaps we should not be surprised. After all, the Committee rejected almost all of the (very reasonable) amendments put forward by those with concerns. Protections for the homeless and those with Down’s syndrome: rejected. A prohibition on encouraging or coercing someone into assisted suicide: rejected. A requirement to meet with a palliative care consultant: rejected. A requirement that there must be ‘reasonable certainty’ over the six-month diagnosis: rejected. Even requiring capacity to include the ability to understand key details was rejected. The opt outs that do exist don’t extend to hospices, which could lose funding if they choose care over killing. And there are many more examples.

In contrast, the Committee hadn’t even begun its line-by-line scrutiny when Leadbeater announced she was axing what had been marketed as her “ultimate safeguard” – sign-off for assisted suicide applications from a High Court judge.

Failing the most vulnerable

The net result means that the Bill fails some of the most vulnerable people in society. If approved, it would place pressure on them - whether real or perceived - to end their lives because they fear being burden. This is what we have already seen in the US state of Oregon, the model for this assisted suicide bill. A majority of those ending their lives over the years cite fear of being a burden on their families, carers or finances as the reason for their decision.

Cross and Kennedy say they have “no hesitation” in concluding that “persons whose disabilities manifest as above are in a significantly different situation…than those who have no such disability. That cohort of disabled persons…are particularly vulnerable under an assisted suicide regime eligibility for which depends inter alia on expressing a wish to die.

The Bill contains no adequate safeguard protecting the position of those with disabilities

And how it could it be otherwise? When the Government’s own impact assessment was finally released, giving MPs just two weeks before the second vote, a key ‘benefit’, as set out in it’s 149 pages is stated as saving the NHS money through “unutilised healthcare”.

The Bishop of London, Rt Rev Sarah Mullally called this “chilling”, particularly in it’s disregard of groups who would be put at risk, “including those who are subject to health inequalities, and those vulnerable to domestic abuse.”

It was “crude”, she said, to see the financial savings of assisted suicide - a reduction in care costs, palliative and end of life care costs and state-provided benefits -  laid out so plainly. “It is easy to see how numbers of this nature could contribute to someone feeling that they should pursue an assisted death rather than receive care,” she concluded.

After all, helping people to die is much cheaper than helping them to live. No wonder the government’s adviser on suicide prevention, Professor Louis Appleby, warned that this utilitarian assessment, “stripped of its moral values,” was a “reminder of where we are heading.”

Better care for all

A number of MPs who voted in favour of assisted suicide at the Bill’s first reading said they were only doing so “to allow further debate on the issue”.

Now the myriad problems with this legislation can be clearly seen - including that it discriminates against disabled people. They must vote against it and, instead, focus their time and energy on improving our nation’s health and end-of-life care.

If the many hours wasted on debating assisted suicide had been spent on improving healthcare and palliative care for everyone, we’d be in a much better position, offering people life and hope instead of death and despair.