Assisted dying law would breach human rights legislation, watchdog rules

UK’s palliative care provision is deemed so ‘patchy and inconsistent’, that there is, in fact, no free choice

Copy link
twitter
facebook
whatsapp
email
Copy link
twitter
facebook
whatsapp
email
The proposed assisted dying law would breach human rights legislation, the equalities watchdog has warned.
In a detailed critique of the Bill, the Equality and Human Rights Commission said the proposed new law could force terminally ill people into choosing an assisted death in breach of their rights under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
This was because provision of palliative care was so patchy that the terminally ill would have no viable alternative but to have an assisted death, thus denying them a free choice.
The commission said this would potentially breach their Article 2 rights to life under the ECHR and Article 3 protection from “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.
Its warning echoes concerns voiced by Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, who has said the palliative care system is “not where it needs to be to give people a real choice”. He has said that he will vote against the assisted dying Bill, which is due to have its second reading debate next Friday.
The Private Member’s Bill, laid by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, would allow terminally ill adults expected to die within six months to legally take their own lives, provided they have the support of two independent doctors and have been approved to do so by a High Court judge.
However, in its critique of the proposed legislation, the commission said the Bill has failed to provide any detailed analysis of the human rights implications of the Bill which would normally be part of any government legislation. It “strongly recommends” this should be done “at the earliest opportunity”.
The commission said that unlike other similar assisted dying legislation in other countries, the Bill failed to make any commitment to provide extra funding for palliative care – as has been offered under parallel laws in Austria and France.
It goes on to detail that research showed the UK’s palliative care provision was “patchy and inconsistent”. The commission also said: “This regional variability could put some people in a position where they consider assisted dying where they may not otherwise have done so if there was a viable alternative to alleviate suffering and end their life in dignity.”
“As such, to ensure that assisted dying is compatible with Article 2 and Article 3 rights, high-quality palliative care should be available to all who need it.”
The EHRC also suggested that the Bill was wrong only to limit safeguards to coercion from others. It pointed to a UN report which warned that the disabled and elderly “may feel subtly pressured to end their lives prematurely due to attitudinal barriers as well as the lack of appropriate services and support”.
It warned that failure to address this would breach Article 2 right to life. “It is important that all practicable social conditions, support, care and services are in place so people with serious or terminal illnesses can decide how and when to end their life freely and without feeling coerced, and therefore in a way which is compatible with Article 2 rights,” it said.
The commission questioned whether a High Court, which operates in an adversarial way to resolve disputes, could provide the necessary scrutiny of assisted dying cases.
It also questioned whether the opt out clause for doctors who conscientiously object to assisted dying was sufficient to protect them against a breach of their Article 9 rights under the ECHR to “freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.
The commission warned that proposals in the Bill to make the Health Secretary responsible for mental health issues in the legislation is not an acceptable way to legislate on such complex and serious matters.
It poured cold water on the theory that because the Bill does not say that disability alone qualifies for assisted dying, that disabled people had nothing to worry about. “Disabled people can also suffer from terminal illness and illness may itself amount to a disability,” it said.
In a letter to Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, warned that there was likely to be a challenge to any legislation under the ECHR on the basis that it discriminated between terminally ill adults and other people with serious disabilities and illnesses. This could mean the scope of those eligible could be expanded.
Copy link
twitter
facebook
whatsapp
email