The state should “never offer death as a service”, the Justice Secretary has said, in a strongly worded intervention over the assisted dying Bill ahead of a historic Commons vote next week.
In a letter to constituents, Shabana Mahmood said she was “profoundly concerned” by the legislation, not just for religious reasons but because it could create a “slippery slope towards death on demand”.
Ms Mahmood has previously made clear she would vote against the Bill alongside Health Secretary Wes Streeting, who faced a backlash after suggesting the changes would cost the NHS more.
But her letter to voters, first reported by the Observer, goes further, stating: “Sadly, recent scandals – such as Hillsborough, infected blood and the Post Office Horizon – have reminded us that the state and those acting on its behalf are not always benign.
“I have always held the view that, for this reason, the state should serve a clear role. It should protect and preserve life, not take it away. The state should never offer death as a service.”
She said “the greatest risk of all is the pressure the elderly, vulnerable, sick or disabled may place upon themselves”.
Backbench Labour MP for Spen Valley Kim Leadbeater, who has introduced the Bill, said Ms Mahmood was a “good friend” but “good friends don’t always agree”.
The Justice Secretary’s intervention comes despite a letter from Cabinet Secretary Simon Case last month outlining that ministers should remain neutral on the issue and avoid taking part in public debate.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has declined to say whether he will back the Bill, arguing that he does not want to pressure MPs. Members will be given a free vote to act according to their personal beliefs, rather than in line with party policy.
But prominent figures including former prime minister Gordon Brown have voiced opposition to the legislation, insisting better end-of-life care is needed instead of assisted dying.
Ms Mahmood, Mr Streeting and Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson have said they will vote against the Bill while care minister Stephen Kinnock said he supports it.
Proponents argue existing legislation fails to respect patient autonomy and discriminates financially between those who can afford to travel abroad to end their lives within the law and those who cannot.
Leading barristers including former director of public prosecutions Sir Max Hill KC have spoken in favour of the Bill, saying it would offer better safeguards than the current system through a process involving two doctors and a judge.
Ms Leadbeater has described her Bill as the most “robust” in the world, with “three layers of scrutiny” in the form of a sign-off by two doctors and a High Court judge.
It would also make coercion an offence with a possible punishment of 14 years in jail.
The Bill, which covers England and Wales, states only terminally ill adults with under six months left to live and a settled wish to die would be eligible.
In response to Ms Mahmood’s comments, Ms Leadbeater said: “Shabana is a good friend and I have the utmost respect for her but good friends don’t always agree.
“I recognise her sincerity and her compassion and fully respect her belief in the sanctity of life but the other points she raises have been made on a number of occasions and I have answered them in the thorough drafting and presentation of the Bill.
“The strict eligibility criteria make it very clear that we are only talking about people who are already dying.”
She added: “The Bill would give dying people the autonomy, dignity and choice to shorten their death if they wish. “
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel