Last November, during the Second Reading of the assisted dying Bill, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, alongside other supporters, repeatedly boasted about the “strict, stringent criteria” that would restrict the eligibility of those seeking state-sponsored assisted suicide. In doing so, Leadbeater also dismissed the concerns that, in the future, the criteria may expand.
Unfortunately, her assertions are by no means iron-clad. Indeed, when we look at events in countries like Canada, the Netherlands, and Belgium, they become suspect.
In these places, once assisted dying became law, a slippery slope was followed down through the eligibility criteria and legal framework being dramatically expanded, often very soon, after being introduced. More disturbing is what followed.
In Canada, where assisted dying was introduced less than 10 years ago, there have been over 60,000 premature deaths. In 2016, medically assisted dying in Canada was initially for those with a grievous and irremediable medical condition, for which death was reasonably foreseeable, only for the law to be hugely expanded in 2021 to include those with serious and chronic physical conditions, even if not terminal.
Questions have long been posed about Canada’s legal criteria, especially considering the case of Alan Nichols, a 61-year-old Canadian, who opted for an assisted death in 2019 after being admitted to hospital on suicide watch.
A relative later told a Senate Committee that days before his death, Nichols was confused, agitated, and refused to wear the cochlear implant that helped him to hear.
Nichols’ application stated “hearing loss” as the reason for being granted an assisted death. Is this the sort of “strict, stringent criteria” the proponents of the Bill speak of? All those of good faith will hope not. Chillingly, assisted dying accounts for around five percent of all deaths in Canada.
Oregon is another ‘model case’ occasionally cited by proponents of the Bill. Yet in Oregon, the interpretation of ‘terminal illness’ may include treatable conditions such as anorexia, diabetes, hernias, and arthritis. Such conditions become ‘terminal’ through the refusal of treatment.
Shockingly, 47.1 per cent of all people who opt for assisted suicide in Oregon cite being a “burden on family, friends/caregivers” as a reason. This introduces into society the notion of guilt-dying.
In Belgium and the Netherlands, the tragic cases would surely bring the strongest of us to tears. Take the case of Tine Nys, a 38-year-old woman with depression and autism. The purported safeguards in assisted dying legislation were not enough to prevent her from being ushered to a premature death by a system routinely failing the most vulnerable.
It is revealing that despite the ‘safeguards’ in Belgian law, there has only ever been one prosecution against an individual for engaging in coercion. This is even though there have been over 30,000 recorded cases of assisted dying in Belgium since its introduction in 2002.
As to the “more favourable” examples of legalising assisted dying, to which Leadbeater has sought to cling, they are from jurisdictions that have recently introduced assisted dying and so where there is very limited data. These include Australian states and New Zealand.
After just three years of being law in New Zealand, some MPs are supporting a Bill tabled there that will expand the eligibility criteria and jettison the six-month terminal diagnosis requirement.
So, given the examples of expanded eligibility shortly after the introduction of assisted dying laws, and the horror stories that follow, how could we possibly conclude that Leadbeater’s flawed Bill will be an exception?
Indeed, mindful of the record of the British state over the past few decades, how can we have confidence that state-sponsored assisted suicide will be a gold standard law compared with other jurisdictions?
It is neither unpatriotic nor unreasonable to reflect on Leadbeater’s logic, in the light of scandals including infected blood, Mid Staffs hospitals, the grooming gangs, and the Post Office. I wonder what makes Leadbeater so confident that her life and death proposal would be an exception.
Why would any right-thinking person believe that we would be the one place that uniquely protects our most vulnerable from ever-expanding assisted suicide laws? If anything, many of these other jurisdictions could claim to be marred in fewer scandals.
There is every reason to believe that when it comes to the slippery slope, the UK would slide at least as fast and far as any other jurisdiction, particularly given the current financial pressures on the NHS. Moreover, as has been made clear, the current proposed criteria could be deemed discriminatory under the ECHR, thus ripe for expansion.
If this Bill is introduced as it currently stands, it is almost certain that there will be attempts to expand its eligibility criteria in the coming years. The UK’s very own horror stories will follow.
Several colleagues who share my concerns are likely to table amendments to address some of the issues raised here. Time will tell whether they will be accepted. The early signs, though, are far from encouraging.
Sir John Hayes is the Conservative Member of Parliament for South Holland and The Deepings. He is the Chairman of the Common Sense Group and a former Cabinet Minister.
