Kim Leadbeater’s assisted dying bill is a disaster waiting to happen – especially for disabled people

After a break from public life since last July, yesterday I was introduced to the House of Lords. In my time away, parliament has seen, in Kim Leadbeater’s assisted dying bill, an attempt to introduce one of the most radical – and I would argue unwise – changes in social policy that the UK has seen for many years.

The bill, which starts its report stage in the House of Commons this Friday, would allow adults with a terminal prognosis of six months or less to have their lives ended on the NHS. This would start a profound shift in the role of the health service and in society’s view about the importance of human life.

Drawing on my experience as a former minister for disabled people, I believe that both would be unwelcome changes for parliament to make, especially for disabled people. This is not just my view; as far as I am aware, not a single organisation representing disabled people in our country supports this bill.

When a physically healthy person wants to end their life, we urgently point them to resources like The Samaritans for support or to mental health professionals for treatment. In a crisis, our emergency services strive to keep them alive. Like healthy people, those with physical ailments can be depressed and suicidal. Yet this proposed change in the law would create a two-tier system, where a healthy person would qualify for support to live while a sick person would qualify for support to die.

The result would be the devaluing of life – an assumption that the lives of some people facing physical challenges and vulnerability are no longer worth living, or saving.

Many disabled people find this approach profoundly worrying. That worry is increased by parts of the government’s own impact assessment on the bill, which suggests that assisted dying would save the NHS money compared to more expensive care costs. If you add to that the government’s proposed significant savings from the personal independence payment (PIP) – clearly driven by the chancellor’s desire to save money, on top of her unpopular cut to winter fuel payments – it is not surprising that there are mounting concerns about this government’s attitude to vulnerable and disabled people.

With support to live being squeezed, what is being promoted as a “choice” to die could easily, over time, slip into becoming the default option. Canada, a beacon of so-called “progressivism”, seems to have followed the same route of simultaneously legalising assisted dying while also failing to meet the needs of the disabled community properly.

Charlotte-Anne Malischewski, interim chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, has previously warned that “too many people in Canada lacked access to the basic supports and services, including health care, medication and equipment”. She further added that “some persons with disabilities were turning to medical assistance in dying because they felt they had no other options”.

Canada now allows those who have a physical disability or illness, but without a terminal prognosis, to end their lives if deemed to be suffering intolerably – a subjective term. Of those applying to die via this route, and who responded to questions on the subject, 58.3 per cent identified as having a disability.

Roger Foley, a disability rights activist in Canada who has a severe neurodegenerative disease, tells the story of how the healthcare system denied him the funding he needed to hire personal carers, leaving him without proper care. In an article in 2024, he wrote that he was informed his care needs were “too much work” and that he had been told by healthcare staff to consider opting for Medical Aid In Dying instead.

The Leadbeater bill, initially said by its supporters to have the “strictest safeguards in the world”, did not fare well at the committee stage. The promised flagship safeguard of the bill (High Court judicial oversight) has been removed. Cases would now only be assessed by panels consisting of a likely less senior legal figure, a social worker and a psychiatrist.

The proponents of the bill in the committee showed themselves almost completely resistant to attempts to tighten safeguards that would protect disabled people. For example, my former colleague Caroline Johnson – herself a doctor – tabled amendments to require that the primary motivation for seeking assisted dying would be physical pain and not, for example, psychological distress. These were rejected.

Also rejected was an amendment proposed by James Cleverly, which would have prevented anyone from opting for assisted dying primarily because they feel like a burden to others. Feeling a burden is cited as a motivation by 45.3 per cent of Canadians who have an assisted death, by 46.6 per cent of patients in Oregon and by almost 51 per cent of people who go ahead with assisted dying in Washington.

The Leadbeater bill is a disaster waiting to happen. It is a badly drafted bill that, far from coming out stronger and safer, has left its committee stage with fewer safeguards for the most vulnerable. Especially for the sake of disabled people, I would urge MPs to vote against the bill when they get the opportunity to do so.

The Rt Hon Lord Harper was minister for disabled people 2014-2015 and sits in the House of Lords