MPs have removed High Court judges from their ‘assisted dying’ plan, in a move that critics say makes it much less safe than it was before – and that’s not saying much!
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, to give it it’s official name, was introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater and was originally intended to allow terminally ill adults expected to die within six months to seek help to end their life if two doctors and a High Court judge verify they are eligible and have made their decision voluntarily.
Critics initially raised fears of coercion – despite the Bill saying it should be punishable by 14 months in prison – and a slippery slope to wider legislation taking in more people.
Buy Cruel Britannia in print here. Buy the Cruel Britannia ebook here. Or just click on the image!
Then concerns that people with terminal conditions would be pushed towards assisted death because it is cheaper than palliative care – and those with long-term illnesses and disabilities would be pushed towards it because it is cheaper than paying benefits.
And now the removal of judicial oversight by a High Court judge has raised more fears that the Bill is fast-tracking people to death, even (or perhaps especially) if it is unjustified.
The BBC’s Politics Live panel discussed the issue today (Thursday, March 13, 2025) and highlights are in Vox Political‘s video clip:
Let’s go a little further in-depth:
Kit Malthouse may have been a poor choice to be spokesman for removing the High Court judge from assisted dying decision-making, as he previously attacked the expense of looking after people who are terminally ill.
He argued that money should be made available to help an estimated 17,000 people per year end their lives, if the Bill is passed into law, because the NHS already spends a large amount on their palliative care.
This has been interpreted as a claim that people should be euthanised because the medical care they need is expensive; in other words, that the Bill should be passed on grounds of cost rather than for humanitarian reasons.
Some people might suggest that this makes him an unreliable judge of whether the Bill should become law, which is why I included the clip of his comments in my video (above).
Former Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby criticised the Bill over the possibility of coercion. He said in October last year that he believed legalising assisted dying
“opens the way to it broadening out, such that people who are not in that situation [terminally ill] asking for this, or feeling pressured to ask for it”.
He said he had noted a marked degradation in his lifetime of the idea that “everyone, however useful they are, is of equal worth to society”. He said the disabled, ill and elderly were often overlooked, in a way that would have an impact on whether they might access assisted dying.
He said he did not want people to feel guilty for having such thoughts and added he was worried people would feel compelled to ask to die if they felt like a burden – an idea he said was wrong.
Welby’s concern was “mission creep” – that helping terminally-ill people to die will change into helping anybody die who asks for it because they feel pressured into it. This is an entirely legitimate concern, especially in a society that does not value people with long-term, debilitating illnesses and/or disabilities.
It is possible for the Bill to legislate against this possibility – but it cannot ensure that future law-makers won’t change it to allow exactly what Welby feared.
The Normal Island website put the matter into a more satirical context:
The government is tirelessly watering down safeguards for assisted dying and is keen to let people with mental health conditions be pressured, I mean helped into topping themselves. Given that “mental health condition” is normally a euphemism for “poor and can see no way out”, you now all have a way out!
The possibility of removing judges from the decision-making process was first mooted by Kim Leadbeater in February.
She said she wanted to replace the judge with a panel of “experts” – not because they would be more knowledgeable about the issues surrounding assisted dying (although she did suggest “extra expertise” would be welcome) but because concerns had been raised about the High Court’s ability to oversee every case.
So it seems decisions over whether a person can live or die are to be ruled by pressures over time and money.
The writer of Normal Island suggested another reason MPs might want to remove judges from the process:
High Court judges are to be removed from the euthanasia approval process to avoid the risk of them saying no. We wouldn’t want anyone with a conscience getting in the way of our austerity measures, would we? The only opinion that matters is that of the vulnerable person who is being pressured into no longer being a burden.
When the Tories were in charge of the country, we culled the poor and disabled against their will. This way, we will cull the poor and disabled with their consent, sort of, because we are progressive now… Have you noticed how our idea of progressive always involves killing people, rather than helping them? This is because helping ordinary people to live is not cost effective.
That brings us back to Kit Malthouse – and to an argument made by Disability Rights UK about the costs involved:
Our focus as a society should be to ensure that all citizens live well. This is not the case at present. Disabled people and those with health conditions find ourselves battling to get NHS treatments, receiving inadequate care and support and having limited access to palliative care.
Until access to good quality support and services become the norm, we believe that opting for assisted dying may not be a real choice, and the proposed change in the law poses a danger to disabled people.
Assistance to die should not be easier to access than assistance to live.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (bottom right of the home page). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Follow Vox Political writer Mike Sivier on BlueSky
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
MPs have removed High Court judges from their ‘assisted dying’ plan
MPs have removed High Court judges from their ‘assisted dying’ plan, in a move that critics say makes it much less safe than it was before – and that’s not saying much!
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, to give it it’s official name, was introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater and was originally intended to allow terminally ill adults expected to die within six months to seek help to end their life if two doctors and a High Court judge verify they are eligible and have made their decision voluntarily.
Critics initially raised fears of coercion – despite the Bill saying it should be punishable by 14 months in prison – and a slippery slope to wider legislation taking in more people.
Buy Cruel Britannia in print here. Buy the Cruel Britannia ebook here. Or just click on the image!
Then concerns that people with terminal conditions would be pushed towards assisted death because it is cheaper than palliative care – and those with long-term illnesses and disabilities would be pushed towards it because it is cheaper than paying benefits.
And now the removal of judicial oversight by a High Court judge has raised more fears that the Bill is fast-tracking people to death, even (or perhaps especially) if it is unjustified.
The BBC’s Politics Live panel discussed the issue today (Thursday, March 13, 2025) and highlights are in Vox Political‘s video clip:
Let’s go a little further in-depth:
Kit Malthouse may have been a poor choice to be spokesman for removing the High Court judge from assisted dying decision-making, as he previously attacked the expense of looking after people who are terminally ill.
He argued that money should be made available to help an estimated 17,000 people per year end their lives, if the Bill is passed into law, because the NHS already spends a large amount on their palliative care.
This has been interpreted as a claim that people should be euthanised because the medical care they need is expensive; in other words, that the Bill should be passed on grounds of cost rather than for humanitarian reasons.
Some people might suggest that this makes him an unreliable judge of whether the Bill should become law, which is why I included the clip of his comments in my video (above).
Former Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby criticised the Bill over the possibility of coercion. He said in October last year that he believed legalising assisted dying
Welby’s concern was “mission creep” – that helping terminally-ill people to die will change into helping anybody die who asks for it because they feel pressured into it. This is an entirely legitimate concern, especially in a society that does not value people with long-term, debilitating illnesses and/or disabilities.
It is possible for the Bill to legislate against this possibility – but it cannot ensure that future law-makers won’t change it to allow exactly what Welby feared.
The Normal Island website put the matter into a more satirical context:
The possibility of removing judges from the decision-making process was first mooted by Kim Leadbeater in February.
She said she wanted to replace the judge with a panel of “experts” – not because they would be more knowledgeable about the issues surrounding assisted dying (although she did suggest “extra expertise” would be welcome) but because concerns had been raised about the High Court’s ability to oversee every case.
So it seems decisions over whether a person can live or die are to be ruled by pressures over time and money.
The writer of Normal Island suggested another reason MPs might want to remove judges from the process:
That brings us back to Kit Malthouse – and to an argument made by Disability Rights UK about the costs involved:
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (bottom right of the home page). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
5) Follow Vox Political writer Mike Sivier on BlueSky
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Cruel Britannia is available
in either print or eBook format here:
The Livingstone Presumption is available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
you might also like
Let’s start the New Year with some hopeful news
Three letters: F-O-X
How much can YOU pay? A&E charges would speed NHS privatisation