Human rights group urges MPs to oppose the Bill, highlighting flaws in its safeguards for vulnerable groups.

Liberty, a leading human rights organisation, has expressed support for the principle of assisted dying but raised significant concerns about the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which is set to be debated in Parliament. The Bill, which will be voted on November 29, could be the first time the controversial topic is addressed in the Commons in nearly ten years.

Akiko Hart, Director of Liberty, warned that while the organisation agrees with assisted dying in principle, the Bill’s “principles-first, details-later” approach presents serious risks, particularly for vulnerable groups. Hart argued that the Bill fails to provide sufficient safeguards, leaving too many crucial details unaddressed. She stated, “There are too many aspects of the Bill that have not been scrutinised properly and are simply not precise enough, which raises serious concerns.”

The proposed legislation, backed by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, has been described as one of the most rigorous worldwide, with multiple layers of scrutiny, including sign-offs from two doctors and a High Court judge. Leadbeater has emphasised that the Bill would make coercion a criminal offence, carrying a penalty of up to 14 years in prison.

Despite these measures, Liberty remains unconvinced, with Hart stressing the disproportionate impact that such decisions could have on marginalised groups, including disabled people and communities of colour. “The safeguards are not robust enough,” Hart warned, “and we know that those most likely to be affected by these decisions are already facing inequalities in healthcare.”

Liberty also raised concerns about the potential for the Bill to evolve in unforeseen ways, with some individuals from vulnerable communities possibly feeling pressured to pursue assisted death. Hart insisted that the human rights issues associated with the Bill are not being adequately addressed, urging MPs to vote against it if they find it lacking.

Kim Leadbeater has dismissed accusations that the Bill has been rushed, claiming that the time between the Bill’s full wording being published and its expected debate is “sufficient” and within the normal parliamentary timeline. If the Bill passes its first reading, it will move to committee stage for further amendments before facing additional scrutiny in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

Leadbeater also suggested that even if the Bill progresses, it may not be enacted for another two to three years, allowing for further consultation to refine its details. However, some of Parliament’s longest-serving members, including Sir Edward Leigh and Diane Abbott, have urged their colleagues to reject the Bill in its current form, citing the complexity of the issue and the need for more time to ensure its effectiveness.