Tim Farron: The assisted suicide debate is getting more fractious but MPs must safeguard the vulnerable

Last Friday, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) bill returned to the House of Commons for the first part of its report stage. Since the second reading debate in November, a committee of MPs has spent 29 sessions listening to expert evidence and going through the bill line by line.  

More than 500 amendments were tabled, of which about a third were accepted. This means the Bill is quite different to the first version we debated. The main change is that it will no longer require a High Court judge to decide whether someone should have their request for an assisted death accepted. Instead, there will be a panel made up of a lawyer, psychiatrist and social worker.  

If you have concerns about this bill and its implications, please write (again) to your MP

Friday’s debate focused on the details rather than the principles of the Bill. There were fewer emotional speeches about people who had suffered awful deaths, but it felt more fractious. Supporters thought the bill was stronger, but others believed it had been watered down. Some who don’t oppose assisted dying in principle felt the legislation was not fit for purpose. 

There are still huge concerns around protection for our most vulnerable people, including identifying coercion, what the bill would mean for suicide prevention strategies, and the lack of decent palliative care for so many. At times, it felt that the supporters of the bill were on the back foot in the face of so many objections about how the legislation might work in practice.  

Questions remain

At the end there were two votes. The first was to close down the debate early - only by a few minutes to be fair – but, even so, it meant that several MPs who had tabled amendments were not even given the chance to speak to them. Neither were MPs given advice or technical drafting support from officials on amendments not tabled by the Bill’s mover, Kim Leadbeater MP. This meant the government was unable to confirm that those amendments were, in the minister’s words: “fully workable, effective or enforceable”. 

I was also concerned that Leadbeater laid dozens of new amendments herself, which implies either that her team doesn’t have confidence in their own bill or, if I were being uncharitable, that there was a deliberate attempt to squeeze out debate on amendments from critics.  Either way, it hardly inspires confidence. 

This Bill is highly unusual in being moved by a backbencher and given a free vote by all parties. It means that MPs must individually consider their positions and I am disappointed at the attempts by some supporters to suggest that those with a religious faith are somehow behaving dishonestly by raising objections. Esther Rantzen’s letter accused some of us of having “undeclared personal religious beliefs which mean no precautions would satisfy them” and therefore means they are seeking to “impose” their views on those who do not share them.  

At times, it felt that the supporters of the bill were on the back foot in the face of so many objections

Many opponents of the bill do not have a religious faith - but they are still unhappy about its workability. And I would rather hope that no one would accuse me of not being public about my faith!  

It’s odd that otherwise intelligent people have convinced themselves that a ‘non-religious’ worldview is somehow neutral. As if! Everyone’s views are shaped by a complicated mixture of their background, beliefs and assumptions. Nobody operates in a morality-free vacuum. As Krish Kandiah said in response to Rantzen’s letter: “assuming hidden motives undermines trust”. Instead, we should “cultivate a space for open, honest dialogue where…all perspectives…are treated with the dignity they deserve.”  

A narrowing of support

On the bill itself, there’s still a long way to go. I think that there is still a majority in favour of the bill, but it is narrowing. The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) coming out against it was significant, if not yet transformational.  But their objection is telling. Given that so many people with terminal diagnoses will experience understandable despair and depression, the RCP say that they cannot currently support the bill because it does not provide adequate safeguards for people with mental illness.  

Indeed, the muddying of the waters over how our society views the tragedy of suicide, is one of the main reasons that many of us remain so strongly opposed. 

What happens next? There will be another day of report stage in mid-June, debating further amendments, and then a third reading debate. This is the point at which MPs will vote whether to pass the Bill as a whole, in which case it will be sent to the House of Lords for scrutiny.  

So if you have concerns about this bill and its implications, please write (again) to your MP, visit them at their surgery – be polite and gentle of course - and keep praying. As MPs we need prayer for wisdom and clarity, and a putting aside of accusation and rancour about the motivation of others.  

Whether you have a faith or not, it is clear to me that Parliament must resolve to invest in the best palliative care, to stand in love with those facing the worst time of their lives, to support our most vulnerable citizens and to protect their autonomy. I believe that means we must reject this bill. 

Premier has launched a campaign against assisted suicide. Click here to join it and ask your MP to oppose this legislation