Labour MP raises concerns that GPs could find it cheaper to promote assisted suicide than offer proper end-of-life care

Diane Abbott, the senior Labour MP, has voiced serious concerns that the expansion of assisted dying could lead to a troubling cost-cutting incentive for GPs, potentially encouraging them to push terminally ill patients towards assisted suicide rather than seeking proper hospice care. Speaking on BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Abbott warned that the rising costs of healthcare could make it more economical for GPs to have patients “sign on the dotted line for assisted suicide” than to secure them a place in a hospice.

Her comments came in response to the passing of a significant bill proposed by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, which moves closer to legalising assisted dying for eligible patients. The bill was backed by 330 votes to 275 in a parliamentary vote on Friday, marking a critical step towards providing individuals with more autonomy over their death. However, Abbott, who voted against the proposed law, expressed her fear that vulnerable people could be coerced into choosing assisted death when what they truly need is access to high-quality hospice and end-of-life care.

Leadbeater has repeatedly assured that robust safeguards will be put in place to prevent vulnerable individuals from feeling pressured into assisted dying. Despite this, many MPs, including some who voted in favour of the bill, have raised concerns about the strength of these safeguards and whether they are sufficient to protect those at risk.

Abbott’s comments reflect the growing concerns about the state of palliative care services in the UK, which some MPs argue are underfunded and inadequate. “We’re moving to a situation where it will be cheaper for a GP to get a very ill person to sign on the dotted line for assisted suicide than to find them a place in a hospice,” she said.

The debate on assisted dying continues to raise complex ethical, legal, and financial questions. In a separate interview, Pat McFadden, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, suggested that any new system of assisted dying could involve additional costs, raising the possibility that individuals may need to fund it themselves. This came after a question about whether such a system would be fully state-funded, to which McFadden responded that all issues related to cost and safeguards would need to be thoroughly examined during the committee stage of the bill.

As the bill progresses, further scrutiny will be required to ensure that the potential for cost-saving incentives in the healthcare system does not inadvertently harm the most vulnerable in society. With Abbott and other MPs continuing to express concern about the adequacy of safeguards, the debate is far from over.

BBC

Mufti Zubair Butt, a prominent Muslim leader from Bradford, has expressed concerns over the potential societal impact of legalising assisted dying in the UK. He argues that such legislation, which would allow terminally ill adults to seek help to end their lives, goes against Islamic principles. According to Mufti Zubair, the right to give and take life belongs solely to God, and the assisted dying bill undermines this belief by suggesting it may be preferable to end life rather than endure terminal illness.

He also warned that the bill could alter society’s views on the elderly, sick, and disabled, making it more acceptable to view their lives as less valuable. While acknowledging that the bill had passed a parliamentary vote, Mufti Zubair emphasized the importance of ensuring strong safeguards to protect vulnerable individuals from potential abuse. He expressed concern that, once the issue is no longer in the spotlight, these safeguards could be weakened.

The bill, introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, includes strict criteria for eligibility, such as being terminally ill, mentally competent, and expressing a clear, informed wish to die. Despite the concerns, Leadbeater emphasized the need for legislation to alleviate the suffering of families dealing with the deaths of terminally ill loved ones. The bill will undergo further debate and scrutiny in Parliament before it can become law.

THE TELEGRAPH

In a letter to the editor, the writer reflects on a visit to St Christopher’s Hospice, where they were shown around by Dame Cicely Saunders, the founder of the hospice movement. The letter raises the question of what Dame Saunders would think of the Assisted Dying Bill, considering her pivotal role in advocating for compassionate end-of-life care without hastening death. Saunders, known for her belief in improving quality of life for the terminally ill, might be deeply concerned about the bill’s implications. The hospice movement emphasizes pain relief and emotional support for the dying, not the provision of means to end life prematurely.

The writer suggests that while Dame Saunders might support more effective care for the terminally ill, she would likely oppose the Assisted Dying Bill on the grounds that it risks undermining the essence of hospice care. Her vision was to offer a dignified death through care, not through ending life, and the writer contends that the Bill, by legalising assisted dying, challenges the values of compassion, care, and the preservation of life upheld by the hospice movement.