Opponents of assisted dying legislation reacted tonight with anger after scrapping a requirement for a judge of the Supreme Court to approve applications to die.
Members of a committee investigating the Terminally Sick Adults (end of life) bill were accused of broken promises after voting to remove an important clause.
A majority of MPs of the 23-person control committee chose to make the large change in the bill from when it was first introduced in parliament last year.
The proposed legislation is intended to allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with less than six months to legally end their lives.
Initially it was said that this would only be allowed with the approval of two doctors and a judge with the Supreme Court.
But Kim Leadbeater, the Labor Member of Parliament behind the bill, later suggested to the supervision of the High Court in favor of an assisted dying commissioner and expert panels.
Under her new plans, the panels will contain a senior legal figure, a psychiatrist and a social worker who will decide on assisted dying applications.
The change has accused her of the recovery of promises that supporters of the account have described, the legislation in England and Wales would be the strictest in the world.
Kim Leadbeater, the Labor Member of Parliament behind the bill, suggested the supervision of the Supreme Court in favor of an assisted dying commissioner and expert panels
Disabled people and their supporters gathered outside the parliament in November to demonstrate their opposition against assisted dying
Campaign group Dignity when dying also demonstrated outside the parliament to support the terminally ill adults (Bill)
According to Mrs Leadbeater's new plans, an assessment panel would consist of a lawyer – a current or former judge or a KC – as well as a psychiatrist and social worker
A group of 26 Labor Parliament members who were against the bill expressed their anger this evening in the removal of the clause of the High Court approval.
They said in a statement: 'The deletion of supervision of the Supreme Court for the assisted dying regime breaks the promises of the proponents of the bill.
'The fundamentally weakened protection for the vulnerable and shows how random this entire process has become.
'It does not increase judicial guarantees, but instead creates an inexplicable Quango and otherwise claims to display the wrongly what is being proposed.
'The new panel process can be kept privately, will not have the powers to make witnesses appear or to make evidence under oath.
“They will inevitably reject public services of essential frontlining personnel without any idea of ​​how much this will cost the taxpayer or any assessment of its impact on the vulnerable.”
But supporters of the account insisted on the removal of the clause and the transition to expert panels would strengthen legislation.
Liberal -Democrat Parliament member Tom Gordon, a member of the committee, said: 'Today's voice is a step in the right direction.
'Replacing the Supreme Court with a multidisciplinary panel ensures that decisions are made with the right expertise, rather than adding unnecessary legal delays.
“We must ensure that our assisted mortality process remains clear, accessible and does not create obstacles for those who are already dying and undergo enormous suffering.”
A group of 26 Labor Parliament members who were against the bill expressed their anger when removing the clause for the men's height approval
Claire MacDonald, director of the My Death, my decision -making campaign group, said: 'The removal of the approval of the Supreme Court, to replace it with a special committee and expert panels, is a welcome step forward.
'We support the step to a specialist panel that can offer expertise and fairness in assisted dying decisions.
'Spain is the only country in the world that requires a panel to judge any assisted death, while no one needs the Supreme Court.
'Most areas of law trust two independent doctors to assess the patient, without a third level of supervision.
“We hope that MPs will remain committed to the committee to ensure that the process is safe, without being too complex or difficult for people in need.”
Mrs. Leadbeater has insisted that the changes she has made will give her Bill 'extra patient -oriented guarantees'.
She said that delivering a 'series of expertise' via the three -part panel 'is a force, not weakness'.
Mrs. Leadbeater said she had 'listened' well to prove about the pressure on judicial resources if every case would automatically go to the Supreme Court.
She added that she also looked like phone calls to involve psychiatrists and social workers in assessing mental capacity and detect coercion.
Tory Member of Parliament Danny Kruger, an opponent of the bill, warned that there were 60 MPs who specified the High Court protection as a reason to have initially supported the proposed legislation.
The Line -By -Line Control of the Bill Committee will take place before it returns to the Lower House – probably towards the end of April – for further debate and a mood.
