Lawyers react as MPs back landmark assisted dying bill

A bill that would legalise assisted dying will continue its journey through parliament after MPs voted, by a majority of 55, in favour of it. Lawyers were quick to react, with one solicitor praising the result while another raised concerns about the ‘complex’ financial implications.

Following today’s second reading in the House of Commons, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will move to committee stage, where the proposed legislation will be scrutinised more closely.

Today's development was welcomed by solicitor Katie Wheatley, partner and head of crime, fraud and regulatory at Bindmans.

Wheatley said: ‘The MPs who voted in favour of it chose to recognise the suffering of people who are terminally ill and give them choice over how they die, while protecting the vulnerable. It is time for the law to change so that mentally competent people can make a choice that is right for them, and for them to be able to call on the support and end their days with the ones they love by their side, whatever choice they make.’

However, Alexa Payet, a partner at Michelmores, said that while the bill will help some families, many will remain in a vulnerable financial position.

Payet said many people who fall outside the bill’s narrow scope will still have to travel to overseas clinics for an assisted death.

‘Travelling with a loved one to an assisted dying clinic, or even just helping them to book their travel, could be enough to trigger the Forfeiture Rule and means that they may not be able to inherit anything from their loved one’s estate, including shares in jointly owned property, pensions, and life insurance policies,’ Payet said.

‘The financial implications of assisted dying are complex and the application of the forfeiture rule in such cases is often misunderstood, even among experienced legal professionals.’

Tamasin Perkins, a partner at Charles Russell Speechlys, raised coercion concerns.

Perkins said: ‘We already see many cases of coercion and undue pressure in the context of financial decision-making, such as writing wills or making gifts, so it’s not unreasonable to anticipate that this kind of coercion would go hand in hand with assisted dying.

‘The real challenge could lie in detecting coercion during a single interaction, when coercion can manifest itself in small and subtle ways, and the complexity of family dynamics can make this difficult to identify. From a medical perspective, susceptibility to coercion is frequently associated with diminished capacity, as individuals become more vulnerable and easily influenced under these circumstances.’

But even if the bill fails to become law, Duncan Mitchell-Innes, a partner in the private client team at TWM Solicitors, pointed out that people can already take steps to make clear what they want to happen at the end of their lives. For instance, people can make an ‘advance decision’ that confirms if they wish to refuse life-sustaining treatment. A ‘letter of wishes’ is not legally binding but will be taken into consideration by doctors. People can register a lasting power of attorney for health and welfare.