Stacking the deck

I have written previously about my view that Kim Leadbeater has sought to stack the deck about her assisted suicide Bill Committee, both concerning the Committee’s membership and the witnesses invited to give oral evidence to the Committee. Sadly, during the three days of Committee hearings last week, the stacking showed no signs of abating. The evidence sessions covered a lot of ground but, for this piece, I will focus on what — if anything — we can learn from the eight international witnesses who provided evidence to the Committee.

Remarkably, all eight witnesses chosen to give evidence from overseas are supporters of assisted suicide — some to a fanatical degree. However, this heavily biased selection likely ended up backfiring as the almost manic enthusiasm of these “experts” to help their patients end their lives came across as slightly unhinged.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Leadbeater appears to have little concern about what has been going on in Canada, instead focusing her energies on Australia. Rather than hearing evidence from the disturbing death machine that is Canada’s Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID) programme, which might just raise all sorts of awkward questions, Leadbeater preferred to turn the Committee’s attention to Australian states, none of which have had laws in place long enough for us to learn too much other than to be deeply troubled by the direction of travel. With so many Australian witnesses appearing remotely on Wednesday and Thursday morning, I lost count of the number of times I heard the Chair say “Good evening”. 

Perhaps it would have been a good idea for Leadbeater to have invited Professor Theo Boer to give evidence to the Committee. An incredibly important voice in the debate for many years, Boer currently sits on the Dutch Medical Council and was formerly a member of a euthanasia review board. Having initially been in favour of euthanasia before subsequently changing his mind when presented with the reality of what was happening on the ground in the Netherlands, he has explained: “I once believed it was possible to regulate and restrict killing to terminally ill mentally competent adults with less than six months … I was wrong. If even the most well-regulated and monitored system worldwide cannot guarantee that assisted dying remains a last resort, why would Great Britain be more successful?”.

Why have six witnesses from states that have just introduced dying laws, but none from Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands or Oregon?

Surely it would have been worthwhile for members of the Bill Committee to have questioned Professor Boer over these views and why he changed his position. But Leadbeater seemingly preferred to have a line of nodding donkeys (or perhaps kangaroos?) from Australia who wouldn’t raise inconvenient questions. 

In addition to the Aussies, MPs were presented with a charming gentleman from California who, if you had to imagine a Director for Death Services, would be a pretty good fit. He revealed with seeming relish that a number of his patients had no idea about assisted suicide before he brought it up with them and then they decided to opt for it. He also stated that relatives who try to persuade loved ones not to end their lives by assisted suicide should be criminalised. Truly, the world of assisted suicide fanatics is upside down.

Next, MPs were introduced to Dr Jessica Kaan from Washington State, who proceeded to gloat about her role in removing the requirement for two doctors to approve an assisted suicide. So much for the reliability of safeguards!

Returning to our Australian friends, some of their comments were so egregious that, even without rehearsing the points raised by Lauren Smith in her excellent critique of the Committee’s oral evidence sessions, there are more than enough concerns to fill this column.

First up, MPs had the privilege of hearing from Dr Greg Mewett who glibly referred to legal safeguards as “barriers” and “impediments”. Then, we met the equally charming Dr Clare Fellingham who appeared to suggest that assisted suicide laws were a kind of stepping stone. “A stepping stone to what?” one might ask.

Then we had Dr Cam McLaren calling for the six months left to live requirement to be eligible for assisted suicide to be extended to 12 months. If this were not all bad enough, we have not even mentioned these witnesses’ apparent disregard for patients who appear to be ending their lives because they feel like a burden.

Reflecting on these international witnesses, any suggestions that their evidence served to provide lessons from other jurisdictions and identify best practices ring resoundingly false. Leadbeater really could and should have done better if that had genuinely been her intention. What was the justification for having six witnesses from Australian states that have only just introduced so-called “assisted dying” laws but none from Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands or Oregon?

There is no justification other than a desire to control what Committee members hear. I would go as far as to say that Leadbeater’s strategy treated MPs and the public with considerable contempt. If you were confident — as she claims to be — in the merit of your cause, you would not shy away from debate but welcome it. Instead, Leadbeater is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of her colleagues — many of whom remain deeply concerned about this Bill regardless of their vote in November. Far more questions are now being asked about the shortcomings of her Bill as a direct result of her tactics thus far. MPs and the public are right to demand more from the process and the sponsor of this Bill. If this Bill were to pass following lengthy, detailed, considered and balanced scrutiny and debate, that would be one thing. But it would be a damning indictment of Parliament, a crushing blow for the vulnerable, and a bitter legacy that would surely haunt MPs if the Bill were to pass instead as a result of obfuscation, chicanery and a wilful refusal to engage with difficult questions or listen to dissenting voices. Leadbeater needs to do better — the stakes are too high not to do so. On that, all of us can surely agree.