MPs scrap judge sign-off in assisted dying bill

2025-03-13 02:04:00

Abstract: Euthanasia bill removes High Court approval. A panel of experts is proposed instead. Supporters say this is safer, opponents cite weaker protections.

The euthanasia bill, under review by the committee, has removed the requirement for High Court judges to approve euthanasia applications. Previously, this clause was hailed by bill supporters as a safeguard, making it one of the strictest pieces of legislation of its kind in the world. However, the Ministry of Justice and senior judges expressed concerns about the impact of the clause on the courts.

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater proposed an alternative, suggesting the establishment of a three-person panel comprised of senior legal professionals, psychiatrists, and social workers to replace the role of High Court judges in reviewing euthanasia applications. It is anticipated that the committee will incorporate these details at a later stage.

Following the bill committee's vote of 15 to 7 in favor of removing the role of High Court judges, Leadbeater stated that the change would make the law "more robust." She added, "This is much safer than the current blanket ban on assisted dying, which leaves terminally ill people and their families with no protection at all."

Leadbeater said: "I am encouraged that, during the course of this debate, colleagues on the committee, regardless of how they voted at second reading, have responded positively to the proposal for a commissioner and a multi-disciplinary panel. This tells me that, whatever our views on the bill itself, we have a shared commitment to providing appropriate safeguards for terminally ill adults. It means we are doing our job."

However, a group of 26 Labour MPs warned that removing High Court oversight "breaches promises made by supporters of the bill, fundamentally weakens protections for vulnerable people, and shows how cavalier the whole process has become." The group said in a statement: "This does not add judicial safeguards, it creates an unaccountable quango, and to claim otherwise is a misrepresentation of what is proposed." The group is composed almost entirely of MPs who voted against the bill at its second reading.