MP ‘will not be complicit’ in approving assisted dying law in safeguards call

Assisted dying safeguards to prevent coercion and “terrible tragedy” are “inadequate”, MPs have argued as they debated a draft new law.

Labour’s Naz Shah warned that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is “literally a matter of life and death” and said she would not be “complicit” in approving a law without adequate protections.

Her colleague Florence Eshalomi told the Commons that she too opposed the proposal to legislate for assisted dying, as a result of “inadequate safeguards against the coercion of minority communities”.

Ahead of Friday’s debate about the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, Ms Shah tabled an amendment so that a person would not meet the requirements for an assisted death “solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking”.

Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP for Spen Valley who proposed the Bill, accepted the change.

Later in the debate, Bradford West MP Ms Shah, said she had spoken to the parents of a girl who had diabetes and complexities of anorexia.

“If the safeguards in this Bill fail, even once, it will be a young woman like Jessica who dies, it will be parents like Leslie and Neil who lose a child. That is a terrible tragedy no family should ever have to endure,” she said.

“No-one in this House will be able to say truthfully that we did not know or didn’t see this coming. That is not compassion, that is abandonment.

“I will not be complicit in that and I hope this House will not be either.”

Ms Shah said: “This is literally a matter of life and death. If this Bill passes that it doesn’t have the safeguards, there’s no coming back from those decisions.”

Conservative MP for Reigate Rebecca Paul said she supported Ms Shah’s amendment, because it “addresses a big risk”.

She said: “In the case of anorexia, there are physical manifestations of the illness, such as malnutrition and diabetes, that might mean the patient meets the definition of being terminally ill, and that is the nub of the problem here.

“The Bill doesn’t adequately rule out physical manifestations caused by mental illness.”

Ms Eshalomi said she had “voted against this Bill at second reading on the grounds of inadequate safeguards against the coercion of minority communities”, and added: “I’m sad to say I’m even more worried now than I was then.”

The Vauxhall and Camberwell Green MP also said: “It is because we recognise that if this Bill passes, it may impact everyone, not just those who may wish to die. It is not wrong or scaremongering to consider the wider family life, relationships with feelings of burdens or coercion including vulnerable women and people from the BME (black and minority ethnic) community at the end of their life.

“It is not wrong or scaremongering for us as politicians as we continue to receive correspondence from our constituents about the broken state of our NHS and social care, and for us to think carefully about a Bill which may alter the very relationship between doctors and their patients.

“It is frankly insulting to disabled people, hardworking professionals up and down the country who have raised many valid concerns about this Bill, to have it dismissed as religious beliefs.”

Addressing Ms Shah’s amendment, Ms Leadbeater told the Commons she had previously “worked with a number of people with eating disorders”.

She said: “Eating disorders cause huge distress for individuals and their families and loved ones, but with care and with the right treatments, it is possible for people to recover and to go back to leading a full and fulfilling life.”

Ms Leadbeater said “some people have expressed concerns that the severe physical consequences of a decision to stop eating or drinking could still enable someone to claim eligibility for assisted dying when otherwise they would not be able to do so”.

She backed the amendment subject to possible “further drafting changes” to reduce the risk of a “loophole”.

From the despatch box, health minister Stephen Kinnock said whether or not to approve Ms Shah’s proposal was “a policy choice for Parliament” but warned it “risks introducing some uncertainty over a persons’ eligibility for assistance under the Bill”.

He added: “Recognising the intent of this amendment, we do not believe it would render the Bill unworkable.”

After the debate, Ms Shah revealed she was “unbelievably” not told that her amendment would be accepted, and added: “We shouldn’t be playing games with people’s lives like this.”