Human rights organisation Liberty has said that while it supports assisted dying in principle, there are “significant shortcomings” in the Bill set to be debated in Parliament next week.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has a “principles first, details later” approach which could lead to significant risks to marginalised and vulnerable groups, Liberty claimed.
The debate and expected vote on November 29 will be the first on the controversial issue in the Commons in almost a decade.
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater has described her proposed legislation as the “most robust” in the world.
Unveiling details of the Bill last week, she said it contains “three layers of scrutiny” in the form of a sign-off by two doctors and a High Court judge, and would make coercion an offence with a possible punishment of 14 years in jail.
But Akiko Hart, Liberty’s director, argued the Bill is “just not robust enough”, and urged MPs to oppose it if they “find it wanting”.
She said: “It is possible to support assisted dying, as Liberty does in principle, but recognise that there are significant shortcomings in this Bill that present serious safeguarding risks which are hard to look past.
“What’s really important is to look not just at who might benefit from assisted dying, but at who this Bill might harm.
“Ultimately, the safeguards in this Bill are just not robust enough, and leave too many details to be decided later, particularly at a time when there is already great inequality in our healthcare system.
“We know that the impact of these decisions often falls sharpest on disabled people and communities of colour, who are already less likely to receive good quality of care.”
Ms Hart said there are “too many details” which “have not gone through a process of scrutiny, and as a result are simply not precise enough”.
She said there is a danger of the Bill “evolving into something it was never intended to be”, warning of risks that some people in marginalised communities could feel pressured into an assisted death.
Ms Hart added: “It is clear to us that serious human rights concerns exist and are not being considered due to the rushed nature of this Bill.
“MPs must bear this in mind when they vote.
“If they find it wanting, they should oppose it.”
Ms Leadbeater has previously rejected accusations the Bill has been rushed, saying almost three weeks between the full wording being published and the Bill being debated is “plenty of time” and normal within parliamentary time frames.
If the Bill passes the first stage in the Commons, it will go to committee stage where MPs can table amendments, before facing further scrutiny and votes in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
Ms Leadbeater suggested any new law would not take effect for another two to three years, with “even more consultation to make sure we get it right”.
Parliament’s longest-serving MPs, Sir Edward Leigh and Diane Abbott, made a joint plea this week for colleagues to reject the proposed legislation, and allow for more time to consider the “immense complexities” of the issue.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here