Has the Royal College of Psychiatrists Killed the Assisted Suicide Bill?

Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill has been described by various MPs as a “farce”, an “embarrassment”, “irredeemably flawed” and “beyond a joke”. But last night’s damning statement from the Royal College of Psychiatrists may be the fatal blow, says Dan Hitchens in the Spectator. Here’s an excerpt.

How do you make assisted suicide safe? In recent months, a large part of Kim Leadbeater’s answer has been to point to the involvement of psychiatrists. Having a psychiatrist sign off each death, Leadbeater said, would “add expertise”. They would be part of a much-touted “multidisciplinary” approach. In particular, they would be able to check that applicants met the threshold of the Mental Capacity Act. 

There’s just one problem. The psychiatrists themselves appear to think Leadbeater’s bill is a dangerous mess.

I’m paraphrasing, of course. But last night’s statement from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, in which they identified nine major problems with the legislation and said they “cannot support” it, is a major blow to the bill’s credibility.

For one thing, it is a reminder of the amateurishness which has been such a mark of this whole saga. Originally, Leadbeater’s bill required a High Court judge to sign off every case. She dropped that requirement under pressure from the Ministry of Justice, who told her it was unworkable. 

The replacement system, an “expert panel”, has no judges, and none of the powers of a court; instead it has a lawyer, a psychiatrist and a social worker. It was meant to reassure MPs that this was still a rigorous process, despite the High Court judge being axed. (Leadbeater briefly tried to popularise the term ‘Judge Plus’ – having subtracted the judge – to make the panel sound more impressive.)

But, remarkably, Leadbeater seems not to have consulted the Royal College of Psychiatrists before announcing that their members would be assessing thousands of assisted suicide applications every year. And now it seems she is dragging them into a process they regard as fundamentally flawed. 

The heart of the matter is this. A psychiatrist’s role is to care for the psychologically troubled. That includes, under normal circumstances, terminally ill people who say they want to end their lives. This bill asks something very different: it wants psychiatrists to rubber-stamp such people’s access to lethal drugs. The tension between these two roles is obvious. …

The Leadbeater Bill has been described by various MPs as a “farce”, an “embarrassment”, “irredeemably flawed” and “beyond a joke”. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has not said anything as rude as that. But its careful questioning of the legislation may prove to be the most devastating critique of all.

Worth reading in full.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

14 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DiscoveredJoys
DiscoveredJoys
11 months ago

If you really wanted to stop the assisted suicide bill then perhaps you should make sure first that there is effective palliative care for all.

Jabby Mcstiff
Jabby Mcstiff
11 months ago

You must never think that there is a compassionate basis for moving in this direction. If you do then you have already lost the guiding star.

Mogwai
11 months ago

I’m pro this in principle, if it only applied to people who were terminally ill and suffering more than any pain meds can control, for instance. However, we know that it’s highly unlikely it will remain just for these types of cases. For instance, remember before the ‘death jabs’ were rolled out and it was only supposed to be recommended for people deemed at high risk, such as the elderly and those with relevant chronic health conditions, but then gradually they changed the parameters so that the things were actively being advised for all and sundry, including perfectly healthy young people, school kids and little babies. So this is what I can foresee this being a bit like, especially if we look at models from other countries such as over here in the Netherlands. So here, as long as the physician is satisfied that your ”suffering is unbearable” then you can get the go-ahead, but this ”suffering” also applies to people with depression and other psychiatric disorders, even autism. If a person is being granted ‘termination of life’ because they’ve got bad depression then I’d say that’s not only a sign that society has failed, but specifically the field of… Read more »

Jack the dog
Jack the dog
11 months ago
Reply to  Mogwai

The slippery slope has been seen in multiple countries including Canada and nl.

RTSC
RTSC
11 months ago
Reply to  Mogwai

If it passes, it will be only a matter of time before euthanasia of the frail/elderly and those with terminal conditions becomes commonplace.

Jabby Mcstiff
Jabby Mcstiff
11 months ago

I have had times in my life where I would’ve gladly ended it all and I am glad that there wasn’t an eager psychopathic physician on hand given full licence by the law.

Sforzesca
Sforzesca
11 months ago

It must indeed be a bloody awful mess of a Bill. (Looks like it’s killing itself).
Not like a professional body to turn down a guaranteed money earner is it.
On the other and less cynical hand, maybe some professions have not lost integrity and gravitas entirely.
Unlike, it’s a long list-
NHS and the GMC
Most medics.
Virtually all journalist/MSM.
Computer modellers and “experts” relying on same.
Virtually all politicians.

I’ve excluded bigpharma from that list as it has never had nor will ever have a single redeeming feature.

Jabby Mcstiff
Jabby Mcstiff
11 months ago

Just look at how quickly it moves from terminal patients with less than six months to live to people who just don’t fit into this world. Canada for example. Unemployed equals useless but hey we have the ideal solution. These are our people the malcontents. They are what make redemptive change possible. The people who are suffering the most internal mental agony are the people who will be most adept at making things better.

NickR
11 months ago

The point all too often missed is that suicide is legal. If you want to kill yourself, go right ahead, fill your boots. The only thing this bill does is to make it possible for everyone involved enter into a complex legal/bureaucratic process to make it rather more difficult.
It’s not as if the prescription cocktail of drugs is necessarily any better than a bottle of aspirin washed down with a pint of whiskey. In Oregon using these drugs it takes on average 45 mins to die.
The real issue, & one that this bill ignores, is whether we should let someone help you top yourself. You might think that the ‘assisted suicide’ bill would consider this but, no.
So for the bed bound, the blind, those motor skill problems or dementia it’s of no help at all.
Truly a dogs dinner of a bill.

RTSC
RTSC
11 months ago
Reply to  NickR

My late mother killed herself using a cocktail of sleeping pills (presumably to make sure she was comatose) and a large amount of aspirin. She wanted to die and I strongly suspect my late father assisted her. Most people have that option; there’s only a very small number each year who, because of extreme physical disability, can’t do it.

This bill will open the door to make euthanasia commonplace for those who, if they really wish to make a swift exit, are perfectly capable of doing it.

allanplaskett
allanplaskett
11 months ago

‘A psychiatrist’s role is to care for the psychologically troubled… This bill… wants psychiatrists to rubber-stamp such people’s access to lethal drugs. The tension between these two roles is obvious. …’
Compare the tension in the role of a consultant obstetrician. In one room he tries to deliver a healthy term baby. In the next room, using the hideous practices of late abortion, he must do away with such a baby, because the mother, entirely at her discretion, has decided she does not want it.

You cannot put people in such dilemmas and not expect them to go insane.

godknowsimgood
godknowsimgood
11 months ago

Making thousands of people feel guilty for being alive – because they feel they are a burden – and making them therefore feel they should end their life in this way, is not a good idea.

Grim Ace
Grim Ace
11 months ago

Leadbettwr is the sister of murdered MP Jo Cox. She apparently got the nomination to become the MP because of that connection. She allegedly has limited competence to actually be an MP, and certainly cannot copenwith the gravitas of such a decision and piece of legislation. Parliament is full nowadays of low intellect, placemne and women.

Zephyrr
Zephyrr
11 months ago

There’s a really good standard letter from Together to send to your MP.
https://together.eaction.org.uk/asbill
Your letter may just swing it!