Should the Assisted Dying Bill be extended to the non-terminally ill?
Emir S
Over the course of the last century, voluntary euthanasia has been one of the most fiercely debated political, philosophical and legal questions, with parliamentary proposals on the matter being rejected seven times in the last hundred years alone. And yet, on the 29 th of November 2024, British constitutional history was made through MP Kim Leadbeater’s proposed Assisted Dying Bill, passing a second Commons reading with 330 MPs voting in favour of the measure (Spry, 2024). In fact, at the time of writing, Leadbeater’s Bill has progressed to the Committee stage, where it will be analysed by a Public Bill Committee before being brought back to Westminster for a third reading (Parliament, 2025). In essence, the Bill proposed that terminally-ill adults should be given the chance for lethal medication, pending approval from two medical practitioners – in other words, giving them the right to end their own lives. One of the key features of the Bill is its definition of terminal illness, clearly stating that the applicant in question must have a progressive and untreatable disease that will lead to their passing within an approximate 6 months’ timeframe (Parliament, 2024, pp 2-3). However, this clause has not come without scrutiny. Some have argued that Leadbeater’s interpretation of terminal illness is too narrow, discounting a large proportion of eligible candidates who could be included as part of the legislation (Maddox, 2024). The following dissertation will explore whether this argument has validity and if the Bill should be broadened in scope so that more people can fit the criteria. The divisiveness of the Bill was made apparent during the second reading, where the vote was unwhipped, allowing MPs to freely express their viewpoints on the matter. Prime Minister Keir Starmer was one of the 330 who voted for the Bill to progress, but his own deputy Angela Rayner voted against the legislation, alongside the likes of former Conservative leader Rishi Sunak and his successor Kemi Badenoch (BBC, 2024, p. 2). Only 38 MPs in total did not vote, the high turnout demonstrating the importance of the issue, and the entire voting procedure was described by many as the most effectively that Parliament has operated in years. However, we cannot investigate this question further before making an important distinction. Arguing for the Assisted Dying Bill to be extended does not mean that every citizen should be included as part of the legislation. Essentially, that would be a legalization of suicide, which is prohibited under the 1961 Suicide Act (Gov.UK, 2010). Throughout the course of this essay, we will only explore arguments for and against two specific groups being included as part of the Bill – those who have severe physical degenerative diseases but do not fit under the terminal scope, and those with serious mental illnesses that are seen as treatment-resistant and unlikely to ever improve. For example, under this criterion a patient with severe schizophrenia/bipolarism that makes it incredibly difficult to operate on a day-to-day basis would qualify for assisted dying, but milder forms of depression/anxiety issues would not. Both the physical and mental illnesses would have to be inhibiting enough to the point where simply performing basic activities becomes near impossible.
There are other minority groups, such as the elderly who do not suffer from any disease, but who may want to be included in the Bill as they no longer feel like they have a purpose to continue living (The
175
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting