Royal College of Pathologists ‘cannot support’ Leadbeater Bill

The Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) has told Kim Leadbeater that its members are “not qualified” to deliver the duties imposed on them by her assisted suicide Bill.

Ahead of an anticipated vote next week, Senior Advisor on Medical Examiners Dr Suzy Lishman announced that despite holding no position on assisted suicide, RCPath cannot support “the current version of the Bill”.

Last month, the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) urged MPs to prevent Leadbeater’s “inadequate” proposals from becoming law.

‘Not qualified’

Dr Lishman said that under clause 35, which dispenses with the need for a coroner to be notified of an assisted suicide, medical examiners would be obliged to scrutinise all such deaths.

She explained: “As part of their scrutiny, medical examiners would need to review the process leading up to the decision to authorise an assisted death and the circumstances of the assisted death, which they are not qualified to do.

“They would also be required to speak to the bereaved family, who may not have been aware of the application for an assisted death until after the individual’s death.”

Not lawyers

She continued: “Lawyers, not doctors, are the most appropriate professionals to review these deaths. The medical examiner system was implemented to detect problems with medical care, not to identify discrepancies or malintent in the legal process required for assisted deaths.

“The training and resourcing for medical examiners to take on this new role would be significant, potentially taking medical examiners away from their current important role.”

She concluded: “Coronial referral for assisted deaths would be in line with current regulations, with all deaths due to a medical intervention or medicinal product being notified.”

Kim Leadbeater dismissed the professional body’s concerns, claiming that involving a coroner is “unnecessary” and the process would be “potentially traumatic” for loved ones.

Psychiatrists

Announcing its opposition to the Bill in May, RCPsych said that “Assisted dying/Assisted suicide (AD/AS) is not a treatment” as it “does not aim to improve a person’s health and its intended consequence is death”. Should the Bill proceed, it added, “it should be explicit that AD/AS is not a treatment option”.

One of the so-called safeguards in the legislation is that applications for assisted suicide will be dealt with by a three-person panel including a lawyer, a social worker, and a psychiatrist. This was only introduced because the judiciary said High Court involvement was not practical.

But the professional body questioned the role psychiatrists would play on the panel, explaining: “If this Bill proceeds in England and Wales, any role a psychiatrist plays in an AD/AS process should be consistent with the core duties of the profession, including determining whether a person’s wish to die can be remedied or treated.”

It also indicated that “there are not enough consultant psychiatrists to do what the Bill asks”, and this is compounded by the fact some psychiatrists will choose to conscientiously object – a right that RCPsych said must be strengthened.

Doctors

Earlier this week, more than a thousand doctors joined forces to urge MPs to reject Leadbeater’s dangerous Bill.

In a letter signed by experienced medical professionals, many of whom regularly work with dying patients, the doctors warned that the Bill “will widen inequalities, it provides inadequate safeguards and, in our collective view, is simply not safe”.

Consultant Gastroenterologist Professor Colin Rees said the legislation “will have very profound consequences for the future”, adding: “many doctors are really concerned that members of parliament are not hearing the views of the medical profession”.

In its current form, the unpopular Bill would allow patients deemed to be terminally ill and with less than six months to live to receive help to kill themselves. Westminster is expected to vote on the proposals on 20 June – at least 28 MPs would need to switch their vote to stop the Bill proceeding to the House of Lords.