I have updated my resources page to include the updated position of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, a statement made by the Association of the Palliative Care Social Workers in response to the impact assessments published by the Government, and the briefing of the Law Society of England and Wales.
Both the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ position statement and the Law Society briefing both deal in some detail with the mechanics, rather than the principle of the Bill (both bodies being neutral as to whether, in principle, assisted dying should be made legal). In headline terms, the Royal College of Psychiatrists:
cannot support the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill for England and Wales as it stands.
Specifically, we hold the following views in relation to the Bill:
1. Terminal illness is a risk factor for suicide.
2. There should be a requirement for a holistic assessment of unmet need.
3. Assisted dying/assisted suicide is not a treatment.
4. The Mental Capacity Act does not provide a framework for assessing decisions about ending one’s own life. [note – in its updated position statement published on 9 May 2025, the Royal College of Physicians stated that shared the concerns previously expressed by the Royal College of Psychiatrists on the limitations of the current Mental Capacity Act and its use in this situation.]
5. It is not clear what a psychiatrist’s role on a panel would be.
6. There are not enough psychiatrists to do what the Bill requires.
7. Professionals must be able to conscientiously object to involvement in any part of the process.
8. Robust professional standards and oversight would need to be in place.
9. Physical effects of a mental disorder should not make a person eligible for assisted dying/assisted suicide.
The Law Society briefing provides (again in headline terms) that:
While the Law Society is neutral on whether or not the Bill should be passed, we consider that if it is, the law must be clear.
-
- The Bill must have robust, accessible and independent safeguards, as well as strong independent monitoring and review mechanisms to uphold the rule of law.
- We recommend that Parliament clarify how Assisted Dying Review Panels would deal with and decide cases, including the role lawyers may play in the process (including as potential panel members) and the availability of legal aid.
- We recommend that Parliament consider how capacity would be assessed under the Bill, with a view to making this clearer in the Bill or (at a minimum) in statutory guidance.
- We recommend that Parliament make what constitutes pressure clearer in the Bill and/or statutory guidance.
- The Bill should also appropriately balance robust protections against coercion and pressure with the aims of the legislation, so that assistance under the Bill is accessible in practice to those who are eligible.
- We recommend that Parliament revisit the term “next of kin” and further strengthen the Bill’s provisions on the use of proxies.
- We recommend that Parliament consider how best to ensure there are strong independent mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing the Act.
- We support the widest possible consultation on all matters proposed to be left to regulations, codes of practice and other guidance, and emphasise these materials must be published before any legislation fully enters into force.
Separately, the DHSC published corrections to the impact assessment, as follows:
Updated the impact assessment to correct 2 errors: in paragraph 68 and figure 4, presentational correction to reflect that the ‘high scenario’ assisted death estimates are based on trend observed in Oregon from 2013 to 2022, rather than 2014 to 2023; and in table 4, to correct the proportion of assisted deaths under the high scenario in year 1 from 0.13% to 0.11%. All impacts derived from the year 1 high scenario have therefore been adjusted across the impact assessment. All corrected sections have a footnote added to explain the adjustments. See the correction notice on the last page of the impact assessment for further information.
It also corrected the equality impact assessment as follows:
updated the ‘Intended aims’ section of the ‘Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: equality impact assessment – HTML version’ to correct the year 1 ‘high cohort’ estimate in line with changes in the impact assessment (from 1,311 to 1,078) and to clarify that year 1 constitutes half a year. Also updated the same section to reflect the correct proportion of applications resulting in deaths (from 2 in 3 to 3 in 5). A point of clarification was also made to reflect the government’s responsibility as “workable” instead of “lawful” in the introduction.
