Voices opposing assisted suicide are vital.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Sonia Sadha

Sonia Sodha wrote an excellent article that was published in the Guardian on February 16, 2025. In her article, Sodha challenges Kim Leadbeater, who sponsored the UK assisted suicide bill, and her colleagues who are pushing through the assisted suicide bill and ignoring the concerns with the bill. Sodha writes:

There could not be more at stake: legalising the prescription of lethal drugs to terminally ill people raises the spectre of vulnerable people being wrongfully subjected to an assisted death with state assistance. It is critical that the bill’s proponents engage constructively with the doctors, psychiatrists, social workers, lawyers and domestic abuse experts who have this concern. Yet Leadbeater appears affronted by the opposition to her bill; she has characterised it as “noise”, described those who oppose her change in the law as unconstructive, and has complained about their “clear mobilisation”. (Yes, when people are worried that legislation could have tragic consequences, that’s what they do.) The implication seemingly being that, unless you agree with her on the principle, there’s no legitimate role for you in scrutinising her bill.

This is not a new approach by those who are pushing to legalize or expand assisted death laws. In Canada, a committee that examined changes to the law refused to extend expert testimony to myself. One Liberal Member of Parliament contacted me to inform me that I was not being asked to speak before the committee because the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition opposes euthanasia. That committee was concerned with expanding the law (Bill C-7).

Sodha continued by challenging the assisted suicide bill committee:

This attitude seems to be driving the way the bill’s proponents are approaching its scrutiny. Leadbeater picked the bill committee and on the opposition side left off seasoned MPs with relevant experience, such as the psychiatrist Ben Spencer, instead selecting a relatively inexperienced group. The committee heard just three days of oral evidence, heavily skewed to those in favour of the bill. It took no evidence from experts in domestic abuse, and had to be shamed into allowing the Royal College of Psychiatrists to give evidence. Almost 400 pieces of written evidence have been published just in the last couple of weeks; when are the MPs on the committee supposed to read and digest them? Meanwhile, the bill’s proponents appear to be cherrypicking evidence from those who agree with them while ignoring the medical experts pointing out the risks of their approach.

Sodha then outlines amendments that have been made to the UK assisted suicide bill without effective input from those who oppose assisted suicide or who would oppose the amendments and the committee has outright rejected proposed amendments from legislators that would have tightened the bill.

Sodha concludes:

The kindest reading is that the bill’s proponents feel so passionate about the rights of those whom it is designed to assist that they may have minimised its risks in their own heads. This would explain their flat-out denials that their bill is unsafe, and their failure to engage with genuine attempts to try to improve it by those who might oppose it but would rather its risks were reduced if it does become law.

If it continues, the hyper-partisanship this benevolent self-delusion has produced will mean people will suffer wrongful deaths, and the buck for that doesn’t stop with Kim Leadbeater, but with Keir Starmer himself.

More articles on this topic:

• Patients applying for assisted suicide won't need to tell their family (Link). 
• UK assisted dying bill is being rushed (Link).
• Why is the UK Labour party putting assisted suicide ahead of social care (Link).