David Smith

“On Second Reading in late November, I wanted to express the concerns that I had with the Bill around coercion, commercialisation and the pressure on people who feel that they are a burden. Unfortunately, there was not enough time in that debate, and there is not much time today either. During that debate, the House was repeatedly reassured by some Members that the Bill was about to undergo a rigorous scrutiny process in Committee. The question on Second Reading that we were most implored to consider was whether we wanted to keep talking about the Bill. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who is not in his place, said it best: “I say to both the Bill’s sponsors that it has a number of areas that they know I think they have to put right—about a dozen, in truth.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 1053.] While the time for talking is quickly running out, this Bill remains far from ready. Too many concerns remain partially or wholly unaddressed—these things have not been put right. Let me highlight three of the issues that I was originally concerned about. First, on the issue of coercion, seven months on from Second Reading, the Bill still does not even define “dishonesty”, “coercion” or “pressure”. Let me say that clearly again—it does not define “coercion”. If we, as legislators, cannot do that, then who will? Further, with the exclusion in the Bill of assisted deaths from the coronial system, a vital opportunity has been missed to include the investigative oversight that would be most likely to spot coercion, even if it was after the fact of assisted dying. Secondly, the marketisation of assisted dying worries me greatly and I do not believe that it has been properly addressed in the Bill. We already know, from last week’s debate, that there is a loophole in the advertising ban, where future Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care could decide to launch public health information campaigns on television, online or in GP surgeries outlining the options of assisted dying. Even worse, in my view, is the certain involvement of private commercial interests in assisted dying. When we combine the known costs to the state from the impact assessment and the unknown costs, the limited resources currently available within the NHS and the conscientious objections of large swathes of doctors, which is surely inevitable, we can foresee that assisted dying will be largely privatised. Commercial operators with shareholders and a desire to maximise profit will inevitably be delivering assisted death. In such circumstances, they will find ways to grow their revenue, including through marketing it, however subtly. Thirdly, on the issue of feeling a burden, on Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) raised the issue of Washington state, where 59% of those going through with an assisted death, in a similar process to the one proposed in the Bill, did so because they feared being a “Burden on family, friends/caregivers.” There has been no meaningful response to that argument, in my opinion, from those in favour of the Bill. I ask colleagues in favour of passing the Bill to consider the following scenario. An older relative knows that assisted death is now possible and that their family is struggling to get by, in difficult economic circumstances. They have a health condition, with a prognosis of five months to live, even though studies show that most such prognoses are wrong about 50% of the time. What will stop our parents or grandparents from deciding to seek assisted dying purely to “do the right thing” by their loved ones?”