Title of assisted suicide bill is ‘misleading’ and ‘argumentative’, say disabled campaigners

A disabled people’s organisation has called on MPs to try to change the “misleading” and “argumentative” title of a bill that aims to legalise assisted suicide.

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s terminally ill adults (end of life) bill is set to be debated by MPs, and voted on, at the end of November.

But Buckinghamshire Disability Service (BuDS) believes the short title of Leadbeater’s private members’ bill does not accurately describe what the legislation would do if passed into law.

Whereas the bill’s short title suggests that the proposed legislation will assist with palliative care and other arrangements for those who are terminally-ill, in fact it would legalise assisted suicide in England and Wales for the first time.

BuDS has written to the speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, to ask him to intervene in the naming of the bill.

In the letter, BuDS says that parliamentary rules are clear that the title of a bill should not be misleading or “argumentative”.

BuDS says the long title makes it clear that the bill is “concerned solely with providing assistance to terminally ill adults to take their own life”, so the short title is “misleading”.

It also says that the use of a “euphemistic” phrase like “end of life” is “both argumentative and sloganistic”.

BuDS suggests in the letter that a more “factual and straightforward” title for the bill might be the assisted suicide (terminally ill adults) bill.

Disability News Service has been told by the Commons that the “orderliness” of a bill’s title is considered by officials acting under the speaker’s authority before its first reading, but that it can also be debated during the bill’s passage through parliament.

MPs will have the opportunity to table an amendment to change the title of the bill at its second reading on Friday 29 November.

BuDS has also written to Leadbeater to ask her to withdraw the bill so the issue of legalisation can be considered in depth by a Royal Commission or a select committee inquiry.

Andrew Clark, chair of BuDS, said: “As a large network of disabled people, we continue to strongly feel that a private members’ bill is not an appropriate way to deal with such an important issue as assisted suicide.

“We have written to Kim Leadbeater MP asking her to withdraw her bill so that the issue of assisted suicide can be considered by Royal Commission or similar.

“Government legislation could then be brought forward to implement the commission’s recommendations, should it be necessary.

“However, if the lobby in favour of assisted suicide is determined to try to rush the legislation through in the form of a private members’ bill, we do think that the bill should at least be honest about its content.

“The long title of the bill (already published) makes it clear that it is not about general end of life issues.

“On the contrary, it deals only with assisting terminally ill adults to end their life.

“That is ‘assisted suicide’, and the bill should be called an assisted suicide bill.”

Leadbeater had not responded to a request for a comment by noon today (Thursday).

Meanwhile, opposition to the bill among MPs – or at least to plans by its supporters to rush it through parliament – appears to be growing.

The Guardian reported this week that there was anger among new Labour MPs “about the speed of the bill” and “a strong feeling that the vote should not take place until the government can show significant improvements to the state of the NHS”.

Among senior figures in the government who have raised concerns about the bill and plan to vote against it are health secretary Wes Streeting and justice secretary Shabana Mahmood, both of whom would have key responsibilities for implementing any new law.

The Guardian also reported that work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall and culture secretary Lisa Nandy are both in favour of the bill.

This week, Streeting told BBC Breakfast (watch from one hour 40 minutes) that it was “an incredibly difficult and complicated issue” and a “finely-balanced judgement”.

He said: “We are all wrestling with this across the political divide.

“I’ve made it clear that I’ll be voting against… that’s mainly because I don’t think that palliative care/end of life care is where it needs to be to give people a real choice.

“I am concerned about the risk of people being coerced into taking their lives sooner than they would have liked, or feeling – even without pressure from their families – sometimes guilt-tripped, feeling like a burden, and I’ve had to weigh up all of those issues.”

A note from the editor:

Please consider making a voluntary financial contribution to support the work of DNS and allow it to continue producing independent, carefully-researched news stories that focus on the lives and rights of disabled people and their user-led organisations.

Please do not contribute if you cannot afford to do so, and please note that DNS is not a charity. It is run and owned by disabled journalist John Pring and has been from its launch in April 2009.

Thank you for anything you can do to support the work of DNS…