Having been elected as the member of Parliament for Batley and Spen in the wake of the tragic killing of her sister Jo Cox, Kim Leadbeater has many times declared that she is “not a political person”. Now, much to her own surprise, she is very much in the spotlight as one of the figureheads pushing the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill into law.
Here, the Labour backbencher talks to Healthcare Today about safeguarding vulnerable people, the importance of making genuine choices and the need for a balance between choice, dignity, and safety.
“I have also always strongly believed in personal choice and that people should be autonomous in the decisions that they make about their own lives.”
You’ve spoken about the importance of compassion and dignity in end-of-life care. What shaped your own views on assisted dying?
A lot of Members of Parliament (MPs) come into Parliament with a vision: “If I ever got a chance to change an aspect of the law, this is what I would do”. I didn’t have that. My journey into politics was unique, because of, obviously, Jo’s murder, and my being a reluctant politician. I still don’t think of myself as a politician at all, if I’m honest.
As I have a background in health and wellbeing – via prevention, early intervention, physical, mental and social health – I wrote a report in March 2023 called Healthy Britain, which was about how we could embed wellbeing if the Labour Party did get into government.
I have also always strongly believed in personal choice and that people should be autonomous in the decisions that they make about their own lives. If you put all those things together, it meant that my view on assisted dying and the choice at the end of life was very much about believing that people should have a choice if the inevitable was to happen.
Every year, you can put your name into a private members’ bills ballot, and if you get drawn out, you get a chance to put a piece of legislation forward. In September 2024, I was in the ladies’ loos in Parliament and my telephone started going bonkers with colleagues and journalists asking what I was going to do with my bill?
I was aware that it was a privileged position to be in and an opportunity to do something which would make a difference to many people. Having spoken to people who had either lost loved ones through difficult, traumatic deaths or had had loved ones who were terminally ill take their own lives, I believed that I had a duty to do something about this situation.
The Assisted Dying Bill has passed the Lords. How realistic is it that MPs will now get the chance to debate and vote on it?
It has gone through all the stages in the Commons, and it has faced huge amounts of scrutiny, debate and discussion. It has had more scrutiny than probably any other legislation, certainly since my time in Parliament.
Now, the House of Lords has an important job to do. I’m respectful of that job, but I’m also clear that while they need to scrutinise and, if necessary, refine legislation, it isn’t the House’s job to block legislation. I want to give them the time and the space they need before the end of this Parliament to improve the bill, if that’s what they think needs to happen.
I was, however, a bit disturbed by comments from certain colleagues suggesting that there might be an opportunity for them to stop this legislation passing. That is something I personally, and the public too, would be upset about, given that you’ve got an unelected chamber vetoing something that polling suggests the vast majority of people across the country want.
“The option of taking control provides such a huge amount of comfort and relief for people.”
As you say, polls show strong public support for assisted dying. Do you think Parliament is behind the curve on this issue?
Some people have presented this as a new debate and a new subject, but that’s simply not true. It is a debate that’s been going on for decades in this country and across the world.
Polling for a long period of time has suggested that between 70% and 80% of the public support a change in the law to give people the choice of an assisted death.
Some of the most powerful conversations I’ve had have been with people, often people of faith, who have said: “This isn’t something I would want, but who am I to deny other people this choice if it’s something they would want?”
The option of taking control provides such a huge amount of comfort and relief for people and enables them to live out the time that they’ve got left in a much less stressful way.
If the bill does pass, how do you envisage assisted dying fitting into the UK’s healthcare system?
It’s a big change, and it would be wrong to pretend otherwise. What the bill will do is to give a much more holistic approach to end-of-life care.
Let’s be honest, health professionals across the country are having conversations about death and dying every single day. While it is a big change, it’s not something which is totally new, certainly not to them or to many families who’ve experienced the loss of a loved one.
We have to acknowledge what an important change it is, and what a positive change it will make to the choices we give to terminally ill people.
“Everything is about achieving that balance between the emotional side of this debate and the technical and legal sides.”
There is a vocal trope, particularly in the British press, that legalisation could put vulnerable people at risk – one that was rubbished by the Australian doctors that we have talked to. What are your thoughts on this matter?
For me, there are two key points around protecting vulnerable people and making sure that only people who want to make this choice actually make this choice.
One is that the bill provides a level of safeguarding which, quite simply, does not exist at the moment. If somebody who has a terminal illness takes their own life, there is currently no legal framework. The bill creates a robust legal framework that gives clarity to loved ones and stops them from being prosecuted, which can happen at the moment.
The other thing is, because of the many layers of safeguards set out in the bill, there are multiple opportunities for healthcare professionals and others involved in that patient’s care to make sure that this is absolutely the patient’s choice. Whether that’s around capacity or coercion, we have many types of pertinent healthcare professionals involved.
What experts from other countries tell us is that if coercion does happen, it actually happens the other way. Nobody wants to lose their loved one, and they will actually discourage someone from pursuing an assisted death because they don’t want to lose them.
What responses are you getting from the medical profession?
It has been really clear, and this has certainly played out in the last year, that there is a range of views within the medical and legal professions. I’m respectful of those opinions, and that’s why strong protections for healthcare professionals who do not want to participate in giving patients this choice have been included in the bill.
Some of the most powerful conversations I’ve had have been with doctors and nurses who have talked about the time they’ve spent with people who are dying. Sadly, far too many stories have been of patients who have died under difficult and deeply traumatising circumstances.
When I compare those stories to the doctors I’ve spoken to from other countries who talk about the voluntary assisted dying process and what that can look like for patients and for families, there’s a stark contrast. Doctors who have a lot of experience in end-of-life care hold mixed views, but certainly, there are many who really do think the law needs to change to give patients a choice from a legal perspective.
Everything is about achieving that balance between the emotional side of this debate and the technical and legal sides. Whichever way you look at it, changing the law has got to be the right thing to do.
