Committee Urged to Reconsider Legalising Assisted Suicide Due to Serious Concerns
In what many have seen as a significant oversight—and an attempt to sideline disabled voices—Labour MP Kim Leadbetter failed to involve ANY disabled individuals, groups, or organisations in providing evidence to the committee on assisted dying. This decision sparked widespread criticism, particularly from disabled people’s organisations (DPOs), including myself. Following the backlash, a single invitation was extended to Disability Rights UK (DRUK) to contribute.
The proposed bill, as it stands, has the potential to cause serious and far-reaching harm, particularly in a society where inequality and ableism are deeply ingrained. The committee was warned that the bill could have profound implications for how society, including doctors and health authorities, perceives the value of disabled lives.
One key point raised was:
“We already face an uphill battle convincing people that our lives are of equal worth. This bill doesn’t help it actively undermines that goal.”
The committee were told many disabled individuals have encountered dismissive attitudes from NHS staff, (and I include myself here), we are sometimes treated as though our lives are less valuable simply because our conditions can’t be “cured.”
This resonated deeply with my own experiences in Shropshire, whether at my GP in Telford or at hospitals like the Royal Shrewsbury and the Princess Royal in Telford.
The committee also heard disturbing accounts from the COVID-19 pandemic, where disabled people were often treated as expendable. Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders were added to medical notes without consent, reflecting a troubling disregard for disabled lives. These stories underscored fears that giving doctors the power to guide disabled individuals toward assisted dying could further endanger a group that already faces systemic discrimination.
Another critical issue raised was the lack of a clear plan for adult social care. The Labour government has delayed publishing its strategy until 2028, leaving significant uncertainty about future structures and funding. Passing this bill without addressing these gaps would be like putting the cart before the horse—risking lives unnecessarily.
As of the end of January 2025, there’s simply too much work to be done to make this bill fit for purpose. Without a clear understanding of palliative and end-of-life care structures and funding—details that won’t be available until after 2028—the bill in its current form should be scrapped. It’s essential to revisit this issue once we have a clearer picture of how to support vulnerable individuals properly.
Mark Webster
Disability Officer
The Green Party
Telford and Wrekin
Comments
Post a Comment