Royal College of Psychiatrists pulls support for assisted dying bill

The announcement is a blow to supporters of the bill ahead of its return to the House of Commons on Friday.

It comes as plans to legalise assisted dying in Scotland passed the first stage this week.

Dr Lade Smith, president of the RCP, said: "The RCP has reached the conclusion that we are not confident in the Terminally Ill Adults Bill in its current form, and we therefore cannot support the Bill as it stands."

This is a significant intervention. The psychiatrists are now the second Royal College to withdraw support for the assisted dying bill.

The Royal College of Physicians (the largest college) adopted a similar position earlier this week saying despite the changes there remained deficiencies that would need addressing to achieve adequate protection of patients and professionals.

Worryingly for supporters of the assisted dying bill, the president of the British Society of Gastroenterology told me "there is a growing medical movement of opposition to this bill" and reiterated the psychiatrists' view that the "bill is not fit for purpose".

GPs, surgeons and nurses so far remained neutral on the issue.

Warnings from psychiatrists have been sounded before. Back in February they raised concerns about staff shortages in the profession. At the same time they raised fears that the bill could undermine suicide prevention.

And it this concern that has led the RCP to urge MPs to oppose the bill in its current form when it returns to Parliament on Friday.

Kim Leadbeater has said consistently mental illness is not a factor in considering a person's request for an assisted death. But the College insists mental and physical health are correlated, arguing that people with terminal physical illnesses are more likely to have depression.

There is uncertainty now in what role psychiatrists will play if the bill passes in its current form as it stands a panel including a psychiatrist would oversee assisted dying cases.

The move is significant because, under the bill's current stipulations, a panel including a psychiatrist would oversee assisted dying cases.

The RCP outlined a number of issues it had with the current bill, including: the bill not making provision for unmet needs, whether assisted suicide is classed as a treatment or not, what the psychiatrists' specific role on the panel would be, and the increased demand the bill puts on psychiatrists.

If the college support remains withdrawn, and the bill passes, it isn't clear what effects it may have.

The Royal College of Physicians (the largest college) adopted a similar position this week.

"Whilst the bill has undergone a number of changes during the public bill committee phase, there currently remain deficiencies that would need addressing to achieve adequate protection of patients and professionals," it said.

"This is a growing movement of medical opposition to this particular bill - it is simply not fit for purpose"

Kim Leadbeater, the MP behind the bill, has confirmed it will include a clause that means anyone who does not want to be involved in the process will not have to do so.

Supporters of the bill argue it would ease the suffering of dying people, while opponents argue it would fail to safeguard some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Questions over the bill

The more prominent role of a psychiatrist in the bill came about after a previous amendment.

Initially, the bill said that after two independent doctors approved an assisted dying case, it would then need to be further approved by a High Court judge.

But MPs on the parliamentary committee scrutinising the bill voted to remove that clause in March.

Instead, Ms Leadbeater proposed a voluntary assisted dying commissioner that included an expert panel with a psychiatrist.

She said this was a "strength, not a weakness," but opponents of the bill disagreed, saying removing the High Court judge "fundamentally weakens protections for the vulnerable".

However, amid changes and amendments to the original bill, there has been growing concern about safeguarding and timeframes, Sky News' political correspondent Ali Fortescue reported.

Friday's debate was already delayed from 25 April, to give MPs more time to consider amendments.

If the bill passes on Friday, it will move to the House of Lords, where it will undergo similar legislative stages, and if it passes that too, it will not come into effect until at least 2029, after its implementation was delayed.

-SKY NEWS