Bill 7: Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (UK 2024)

Lord Falconer introduced Bill 7 — the euphemistically named Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill [HL] — to the House of Lords on 26 July 2024. Rational people know this Bill is aimed to provide Assisted Suicide — Physician Assisted Suicide.

(Click on the link to access the full text at the UK Parliament’s web-site.)

This article compares Falconer’s Bill 7 with Baroness Meacher’s “Assisted Dying Bill” from 2021: Bill13 which are essentially identical. (My original CA review of the Meacher version can be read by clicking the image below.)

*(Click image to link to my 2021 CA review of the Meacher Bill.)*

List of sections (2024 Bill 7 on the left: 2021 Bill 13 to the right):

1-12 are the same sections (and have mostly similar or identical wordings in their clauses.) Falcolner Section 13 changed to “Review” and 14 became “Extent, commencement and short title”:

NOTE: Falconer removed “Repeal” from 14!

Section 1: Assisted dying

As before, two doctors process a request for Assisted Suicide [AS] and Falconer continues the ante-mortem review by the High Court (Family Division) which will provide the Order for the AS to be provided.

The High Court confirmation is to provide a “rubber-stamp” which ensures that basic paperwork requirements are met and give the appearance of an external review. Falconer does not allow for a hearing / appeal process for family, friends & doctors who suspect an applicant is under duress, coercion or incapacity.

Again, Bill 7 allows for AS to be provided to those “…ordinarily resident in England and Wales for not less than one year.” The UK has the temerity to claim jurisdiction over the lives of foreign citizens!! (Perhaps the People’s Republic of China or the Russian Federation will take a dim view of their citizens being killed in England and Wales. In difficult times, that could be portrayed as an Act of War.)

Section 2: Terminal illness

Again, the pivotal issue in the lack of a definition about the ability to treat, “reverse,” or cure an illness. Many cancers and other serious illnesses have cure rates so the Bill needs to specify the degree to which an illness can be “reversed by treatment” to be excluded under the Bill. (In Canada, people simply refuse curative treatment and then are deemed terminal.)

Also, prognosis is a rough guess. It is clear in Canada that the assessing doctors are frequently pessimistic about the prognosis to help their “clients” meet criteria.

Section 3: Declaration

The 2024 Bill has now excluded witnesses who are: “…likely to receive any benefit directly or indirectly from the person’s death.” which removes the glaring problem in the 2021 Bill 13 that a financial beneficiary could witness the AS application!

To stress, doctors are not trained in the identification of coercion and duress. Nor do they report societal coercion, such as the lack of ER services, palliative care or reduced financial assistance.

Indeed, the societal support for AS (such as telling the person repeatedly that they are “so brave”) is a form of duress. Also organ donation is used as leverage for the applicant to proceed: “But you will save so many lives...” This should be considered an offense under Section 10.

Bizarrely — as in 2021 — there is NO requirement for palliative-care consultation; social-worker assessment; spiritual guidance, etc. unless one of the 2 doctors has “doubt as to a person’s capacity to make a decision.” (“Hey, I had no doubt…”)

Again, cancelling an application seems easy, but still the Bill does not specify whom must be told, nor whether it can be by second-hand communication. (If the applicant denies they revoked their application verbally to a family member, the family member could now be charged under Offenses.)

Also, the Bill should specify what happens if the applicant changes their mind a second time and wishes to initiate — or resume — the AS process. Is that a new application with a full wait-time or do they pick up from where they were in the process?

Section 4: Assistance in dying

Again, Bill 7 excludes the direct administration of the poison — so NO to Voluntary Euthanasia.

(5) Subsection (4) does not authorise an assisting health professional to administer a medicine to another person with the intention of causing that person’s death.

There is a gray-zone with a clause which allows the assisting heath professional to:

assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the medicine.

Does that stretch to what Harry Potter did to Dumbledore? Does it include holding an arm down?

Like Bill 13, Bill 7 gives no direction as to what is to happen when AS fails or is prolonged or becomes complicated. Expect those cases to make the tabloid headlines and be used to promote Voluntary Euthanasia later.

One excellent clause in both Bills is that the supervising health professional must:

But watch for the graphic headlines, which will be used to push for Voluntary Euthanasia.

Section 5: Conscientious Objection

Ethical doctors be warned — the section on conscientious objection is a massive 3 lines...

Section 6: Criminal liability

Again, Bill 7 almost fully indemnifies against ALL possible criminal charges when health care professionals provide assistance in accordance with the act.

Section 10: Offenses

Curiously, this one section which has been expanded since Meacher: it cuts two ways.

Clauses 3 and 4 are new.

Clause 3 cuts both ways — “to make or revoke a request for assistance to die.” So, when does a spouse’s strenuous opposition to their partner’s decision for AS become “coercion”??

Repeal

One of the final clauses in Meacher’s Bill 13 has been removed from Bill 7:

“(4) At any time during the period of 12 months beginning on the day 10 years after the provisions in subsection (3) come into force, this Act may be repealed by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

(“Heck — NO ONE is going to repeal our Death Bill!!”)

Conclusion

The con-job in this Bill is the High Court “review.”

Superficially, this looks good, but it does not allow for a hearing or appeal from family members, friends and attending doctors who suspect an applicant is under duress, coercion or incapacity.

Dr. Kevin Hay
You can follow Kevin on 𝕏 ( Twitter / Twi𝕏 ) @ kevinhay77

Copyright: Catholic Arena