Kim Leadbeater MBE’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill , commonly known as the Assisted Dying Bill, has sparked significant nationwide debate and interest. As it progresses through Westminster, the Bill raises plenty of legal concerns, as well as evident moral issues. This article explains the Bill’s current status, its legal complications, and its potential impact on testamentary capacity and forfeiture rulings.
The Bill: In Brief
Recent surveys show that more than half of Britons support the idea of assisted dying, reflecting a significant shift in public opinion.
Introduced in the House of Commons as a Private Members’ Bill, the Bill aims to legalise assisted death for terminally ill adults with six months or less to live. It includes stringent safeguards, such as requiring two independent doctors to assess the patient’s eligibility, and a High Court Judge to confirm the decision. The aforementioned version of the Bill passed in the House of Commons in November last year, by a majority of 55 votes.
However, the wording of the Bill is likely to change before Royal Assent. For instance, Ms Leadbeater, the MP behind the Bill, has proposed that the assisted dying bill would be reinforced by her proposal that cases would be approved by experts, rather than a High Court judge. These panels, who review each application, would be chaired by a senior legal individual (not necessarily a judge) and psychiatrists and social workers would form the rest of the panel. If necessary, the High Court could review the decision.
The Bill has passed its second reading in the House of Commons and is currently undergoing line-by-line scrutiny in the Committee Stage. The Bill is then picked with a fine-tooth comb in the Lords stages. Amendments are considered then the Bill is enacted. While it has garnered multipartisan support, it faces numerous hurdles before becoming law. The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, guaranteed a free vote on the Bill. This is understandable, since a law of such moral gravity ought not fall into the usual game of party politics.
The Forfeiture Rule
Though suicide has been decriminalised in the UK since the 1961 Suicide Act, the Forfeiture Rule presents a substantial snag for the Assisted Dying Bill’s application. Under the Forfeiture Act 1982, anyone who unlawfully kills another person cannot inherit from the deceased’s estate. This rule applies, even if the person avoids criminal prosecution for assisting suicide. In the context of assisted dying, beneficiaries and relatives who help a loved one end their life could forfeit their inheritance.
Recent cases, such as Morris v Morris, demonstrate how this rule would operate. In this case, the High Court granted relief from forfeiture to a husband who assisted his wife in ending her life at a Swiss clinic. The court recognised his motives as compassionate and that he was, albeit reluctantly, fulfilling his wife’s clear wish to die without enduring more suffering. The ruling allowed him to inherit her estate. Nevertheless, legislators must ensure that forfeiture does not stop those individuals, who choose euthanasia, from having their testamentary wishes fulfilled.
Another notable case is Withers Trust Corporation v Estate of Goodman. Here, Hannah Goodman, suffering from terminal lung cancer, decided to end her life with the assistance of her husband, Adrian Berry. Due to the pandemic, they could not travel to Switzerland, so Adrian assisted her at home. After her death, Adrian faced the forfeiture rule, which would have barred him from inheriting her estate. The High Court granted relief, recognising Adrian’s minimal moral culpability and empathetic motivations, allowing the couple’s charitable gifts to proceed without inheritance tax implications.
Testamentary Capacity and Mental Health
The Assisted Dying Bill also raises questions about testamentary capacity and mental health. Under the Bill, patients must undergo rigorous assessments to ensure they possess sound mind when requesting access to the lethal dose. This process includes evaluations by two independent doctors and a panel of experts’ confirmation.
These stringent requirements, some of the most watertight in the world, could make it more challenging to contest wills on the grounds of lack of capacity. If a patient has been thoroughly assessed and is deemed capable of making an informed decision about assisted dying, arguing that they lacked the capacity to make a valid will becomes harder. Further, a patient cannot request euthanasia purely based on mental health problems; they need to have an estimated life expectancy of under six months. In sum, this will give greater certainty and protection for the patient’s final wishes.
Navigating Legal Amendments
While the Assisted Dying Bill offers a compassionate option for patients suffering from terminal diseases, it also necessitates amendments to existing legislation. The interaction between the Bill and the Forfeiture Act requires careful consideration to ensure that relatives do not face unfair penalties for supporting their loved ones’ wishes.
The Assisted Dying Bill represents a significant step forward in providing terminally ill patients with the choice to end their suffering on their own terms. Still, along with religious and moral qualms, it creates legal challenges – particularly regarding the Forfeiture Rule. For now, we can be reassured that assisted death’s capacity clause, based on the Mental Capacity Act 2005, is strict enough to limit the likelihood of messy capacity disputes. Legislators should approach these intricacies carefully. Over the coming months, we will likely see the Bill undergo various iterations before it is enacted in its final form, as more than 300 amendments have been tabled.
