Debate deepens over High Court’s role and eligibility for assisted death
.The UK Parliament’s committee on the Assisted Dying Bill has begun reviewing the legislation line by line amid growing debate over key provisions. This follows three days of expert testimony, where concerns were raised about the requirement for High Court judges to sign off on assisted dying applications.
Retired High Court judge Sir Nicholas Mostyn cautioned that having the court approve every case would be impractical. “You’re talking about nearly three quarters of the entire Family Division doing nothing but this,” he said. Mostyn suggested instead that a panel comprising a doctor and a lawyer should handle each case to ensure compliance with the law.
The bill’s sponsor, Kim Leadbeater, expressed openness to making adjustments based on expert input. “This bill already contains the strongest safeguards anywhere in the world,” she said, “but I promised to give close attention to the advice we have received on how the bill could be made even stronger.”
However, Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Olney criticized the proposed removal of the High Court’s oversight, arguing that MPs voted for the bill in November under the assumption that judges would play a central role. “To make this really profound change at this time makes it very, very difficult for the committee to decide whether this is the right thing or not,” she told BBC Breakfast.
Over 300 amendments to the bill have been tabled so far, with more expected. One key amendment, proposed by Liberal Democrat MP Tom Gordon, seeks to expand eligibility to patients with neurodegenerative conditions such as Parkinson’s, allowing them access to assisted death with 12 months to live. Currently, the bill limits eligibility to those with six months or less to live.
Gordon explained the rationale behind his proposal: “For those with neurodegenerative conditions, in their last six months, it may be too late for them to engage in the process of applying.” However, Leadbeater reportedly does not support expanding the timeframe beyond six months.
The bill, which passed an initial vote in November by a majority of 55 MPs, will undergo further debates in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords before it can become law. The outcome of these discussions and amendments will determine the final shape of the legislation.
