Controversial UK Bill on assisted dying triggers debate in Gib
A controversial UK Bill on assisted dying has triggered discussion in Gibraltar after the Gibraltar Government told GBC it was following the developments closely.
The legislative process in the UK is still in its very early stages and the Gibraltar Government has signalled only that it is following the debate carefully before considering any next steps.
But already, the prospect of Gibraltar potentially passing laws on assisted dying has drawn clear opposition.
At the weekend, the Evangelical Alliance urged the Gibraltar Government to resist any such move.
The focus on this issue comes after the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was brought before MPs in the House of Commons last week.
Last Wednesday, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater formally introduced her Bill to give choice at the end of life for the terminally ill.
A debate and first vote are expected to take place on November 29.
Earlier this year, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer had said he was “committed” to allowing a vote on legalising assisted dying should his party win the general election.
He has previously supported assisted dying but has said the Government will remain neutral on the issue.
MPs will have a free vote in Parliament, deciding according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
If the Bill passes the first stage in the Commons, it will go to committee stage where MPs can table amendments, before facing further scrutiny and votes in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, meaning any change in the law would not be agreed until next year at the earliest.
It applies only to England and Wales.
High-profile voices for change include Dame Esther Rantzen, while the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and actor and disability campaigner Liz Carr have voiced their opposition.
Mr Welby has warned that introducing any form of legislation for assisted dying could lead to a “slippery slope” which widens the eligibility criteria, while Silent Witness star Carr said the disabled could be especially vulnerable.
Confirmation of the Bill’s title led campaigners who feel the proposed law should cover those who might not be terminally ill but who are facing unbearable suffering to brand it a “bittersweet moment”.
The Bill’s long title states that it would “allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life”.
The precise detail of the proposed legislation – setting out the circumstances which could lead someone to be eligible – is unlikely to be published until closer to that debate.
Ms Leadbeater has indicated she would like to see a “time frame” on the diagnosis of patients, and she told BBC’s Newsnight there must be both medical and judicial safeguarding when it was put to her that the Bill could require two medical professionals and a judge to agree.
The UK’s top doctors have written to advise medics who might be “unsure whether they can take part publicly in this debate” that it is “entirely reasonable for any doctor to give their opinions”.
The chief medical officers of the UK’s four nations also said that, whatever Parliament decides, the provision of good end-of-life care must not be undermined and that healthcare staff “should be able to exercise freedom of conscience as, for example, happens with abortion care currently”.
If the Bill clears its first hurdle at the end of November, it will face line-by-line examination in committee and further Commons votes before being sent to the Lords where the process begins again, meaning any change in the law would not be agreed until next year at the earliest.
It is possible that MPs could vote against it on November 29, as they did last time changes to the law were considered in 2015, preventing it going any further.
Mr Welby, warning of his concerns around legalising assisted dying, told the BBC: “I think this approach is both dangerous and sets us in a direction which is even more dangerous, and in every other place where it’s been done, has led to a slippery slope.”
But Ms Leadbeater has rejected this argument, telling ITV’s Good Morning Britain she would not have such concerns so long as “we get this legislation right”.
She said: “That’s why the next six weeks and the debates that will come in the following months are really important.”
“We’ve got the benefit in this country of looking at what other countries have done. And I’m very clear, based on what I’ve seen so far and the research that I’ve done is, if we get this right from the start, which some places have done, places like Oregon and certain states in Australia, we have very strict criteria, then those jurisdictions do not broaden out the criteria.”
“So we have to get it right from the start with very clear criteria, safeguards and protections.
“And I’m not looking at the model that is going on in Canada. I’m looking at those other jurisdictions where this is done well and in some cases it’s been done for a long time, very well, and the criteria have never been extended.”
The Canadian model is open to people experiencing intolerable suffering caused by their medical condition, whereas in Oregon it is limited to those who are terminally ill.
Describing the Bill’s introduction as a “bittersweet moment”, campaign group My Death, My Decision, said it was a “significant and long-awaited step” to “end the inhumane blanket ban on assisted dying”.
But they added that a number of conditions “can make life intolerable for the sufferer well before they can be described as terminal, or the diagnosis of terminal status may come too late, when the patient has lost mental capacity”, and pledged to keep campaigning for these people.
Dr Gordon Macdonald, chief executive of Care Not Killing, said the Bill “sends a dog whistle message to the terminally ill, vulnerable, elderly and disabled people, especially those on low or fixed incomes that their lives are worth less than others” and has called for more focus on improving access to palliative care.
In Gibraltar, the Gibraltar Government said it was too soon to say what steps if any it would take in light of the developments in the UK Parliament, or whether this issue would be put to a referendum.
But the Evangelical Alliance of Gibraltar said it was saddened that the Government was even considering this matter.
“We believe that all human life, from conception to natural death, is sacred gift from God that should be nurtured and cared for,” it said in a statement.
“We consider this proposal as another step in the rapid dilution of our moral and social values.”
“We can see how there will be many ‘good’ reasons put forward to support the argument in its favour, ranging from the use of the much abused ‘freedom of choice’, to the idea of releasing people from unnecessary suffering.”
“We also understand that the proposal does not go as far as full euthanasia, but like every stage in the progressive agenda it is just another step down a slippery slope, that will eventually lead there.”
The Alliance said it believed any proposal to give those who are terminally ill the right to end their lives would put “further pressure and anguish” on those same people.
“In many cases they might already consider themselves to be a burden to their relatives or society and it would not take much persuasion from their relatives to push them into making a decision that would relieve those same relatives from their duty of care,” it added.
“We understand that this legislation is also being proposed in the UK, but we do not have to follow everything that happens in the UK.”
“If we do not follow the UK in providing realistic levels of social assistance to the many who are in need, why do we have to follow in matters which dilute the essence of the loving and caring community that Gibraltar is.”
“We would ask the Government to seriously rethink their approach to this matter.”