The UK’s former top judge has warned that assisted dying decisions should be kept out of the courts, suggesting the removal of the clause that requires terminally ill people to get court approval.
The Bill could see terminally ill adults in England and Wales with under six months to live legally allowed to end their lives, subject to approval by two doctors and a High Court judge.
But giving evidence at the Assisted Dying Committee on Wednesday, Lord Sumption suggested the removal of the clause 12 stage, which requires a terminally ill person to apply to the High Court for a declaration that the requirements of the Bill have been met.
The former Supreme Court justice previously backed a change in the law to allow assisted dying, but described Kim Leadbeater’s legislation – which passed its second reading in the Commons before Christmas last year – as “over-engineered, bureaucratic, and coldly inhumane”.
He is one of about 50 witnesses who will give evidence across three days this week as the committee prepares to look next month in detail at each part of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
Ms Leadbeater asked him whether he would agree with remarks made by England’s chief medical officer Prof Chris Whitty, who urged MPs to not overly complicate assisted dying laws if they are to introduce it.
Prof Whitty said the best safeguards were the simple ones and warned that patients could find themselves in a "bureaucratic thicket" at the end of life if there is too much to navigate.
Responding, Lord Sumption said: “I do agree with that.”
“One suggestion, which I think would make a significant difference, was the removal of the clause 12 stage.
“I think that that is a principal point, because the medical input from the two referee doctors, that is an important but private and informal process. Whereas the proceedings of a court are extremely public and formal and also productive of very considerable delay.
“So that would make a considerable difference in the direction you’re talking about,” he said.
Under the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in its current form, a High Court judge must hear from at least one of two independent doctors who have signed off the dying person’s application and can also question the dying person as well as anyone else they consider appropriate.
On Tuesday, retired High Court judge Sir Nicholas Mostyn - who has Parkinson’s disease - told MPs at the committee that it would be “impossible, in my opinion, for this to be done by the High Court”.
Instead, he suggested the use of a panel, as is the case in Spain, with a doctor and a lawyer checking everything has been done lawfully.
Speaking about High Court capacity, he said he had calculated, based on the number of hours which would need to be dedicated to each application and the potential number of cases, that there could be “nearly three quarters of the entire family division doing nothing but this”.
Lord Sumption also urged people to be “conscious of the fact that coercion, even when it is overtly applied, is extraordinarily difficult to detect”, drawing attention to the “subtle pressures that old and disabled people” feel.
“In the end I have come down in favour of the principle behind this Bill. But I regard it as an extremely difficult balance to draw, notably for that reason,” he told the committee.
No date has been given yet for the Bill to return to the Commons for further debate by all MPs at report stage but it is likely to be towards the end of April.
While the Bill passed second reading stage after a lengthy debate in the Commons before Christmas, some MPs who voted yes said they might not continue their support if they are not convinced of strong safeguards around aspects including potential coercion.
The Bill will face further scrutiny and votes in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, meaning any change in the law would not be agreed until later this year at the earliest.
