
Yesterday’s newspapers heralded the successful passage of an assisted dying law in Jersey, an autonomous British Crown Dependency island of the British Isles. Similar proposals in Scotland, England and Wales continue to drag through respective parliaments. There is a high chance that they will simply run out steam, as many bills before them, reflecting wishes of a majority of the populace – but debated until they sink like the Titanic or just run the gauntlet and no more.
Centre stage is the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2025 (Leadbeater Bill) which is yo-yoing between the Commons and the Lords. As reported by the BBC:
The Leadbeater bill is in deep trouble in the Lords. Despite passing all its stages in the Commons, it seems certain it will run out of time. More than 1,200 amendments have been tabled in the Lords, 700 of those by just 8 peers.
If the bill is not passed before the end of this parliamentary session, it fails.
It will be open to another MP to reintroduce the bill after the next King’s speech, but that depends on assisted dying campaigners being able to persuade one of those at the top of the private members ballot to champion their cause.
We wish them luck with their efforts. The bill is not, in itself, badly crafted as such bills go. Currently at almost 60 pages, it covers so many fine adjustments and safeguards as to be worthy of an academic publication. If, against all odds, it succeeds, it will doubtless benefit a few people. Sadly not enough people. Nor does it go far enough. The most worrying aspect is “reporting failures”. With the means unspecified until the future, the patient will be responsible for swallowing a lethal formula. A doctor cannot intervene directly. (In countries with full assisted suicide or euthanasia laws, if the patient goes into a coma or risks surviving and worse off, the doctor would provide an injection.
Even in countries where laws have been implemented, for many, the only option after unsuccessfully trying to navigate the small print is the d-i-y self-euthanasia option. But does that mean that legislation is hopeless? We think not…
The best form of the law is post hoc enquiry. This occurs with simple regularity in Switzerland. Every assisted suicide is performed lawfully and routinely investigated by appropriate authorities afterwards.
Any person in Switzerland who for selfish motives incites or assists another to commit or attempt to commit suicide shall, if that other person thereafter commits or attempts to commit suicide is liable to prosecution.
This is similar to the model arrived at in a Glasgow University survey. It is called consequential or permissive legislation. Not because it is overly ‘permissive’: it simply permits exceptions to the law against assisted suicide where there is no wrongful motive. The legal framework goes into action afterwards rather than generating vast and complex what-if scenarios beforehand. It is also easier to apply. It is easier to investigate than something that hasn’t happened yet. It doesn’t require an army of highly trained judiciary in an already overworked backlog.
Consequential legislation is easier to enact and easier to enact under some legal systems than others. It is patient-centred rather than generating a mass of red tape to ‘protect’ doctors and other persons that might be involved. It doesn’t rely on applying precise criteria (like six or twelve months to live) to imprecise medical situations of much suffering where a date of death, even an educated guess, is unknown.
The Glasgow study (McLean & Britton) “Sometimes a Small Victory” was privately published in 1996.










