by Jamie Gillies, UnHerd
Doctor-assisted suicide may not be available in England until at least 2029 if it is made legal, after a significant amendment to the UK’s assisted dying bill.
Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill had specified that assisted deaths should take place within two years of a law being ratified. However, substantive changes to the bill at the committee stage — a new, panel-based system for oversight of assisted suicide cases, and a requirement for an Assisted Dying Commission to be established — caused doubt that the law could operate within this time frame. A four-year implementation plan is therefore now expected, following an amendment tabled by Leadbeater herself.
This news has not gone down well among supporters of the legislation, who want access to assisted dying in the UK sooner rather than later. Proponents are also aware that the new timeline means that any implementation of the law will coincide with the next general election. As such, the highly contentious issue of assisted suicide may still be in the headlines as Britons prepare to go to the polls. Many Labour politicians will feel nervous about this, with good reason.
Requiring the NHS to park its core ambition in order to facilitate people’s assisted suicides has been described as betraying the legacy of Aneurin Bevan, hence why one MP yesterday warned of a move to the “National Health and Assisted Suicide Service”. The delay means that such criticisms will continue in years to come, with greater emphasis in the lead-up to 2029. Labour MPs may be fielding questions about controversial, Government-instituted assisted suicide infrastructure as they seek re-election. It’s unlikely any parliamentarian would relish the opportunity to do that.
Last year, Keir Starmer gave his tacit support to Leadbeater, as did other members of the Cabinet. At a political level, it may have been felt that a debate on assisted suicide in the first year of a new parliament and a new law coming into operation quickly was expedient. The previous two-year time frame may have allowed for this, but the new proposal changes things. Critics will be wondering what this means for Number 10’s position on the issue.