Leadbeater’s latest assisted dying U-turn could give Starmer a run for his money – and harm just as many disabled people

In a move that might even give Labour Party PM Keir Starmer a run for his money, Kim Leadbeater has announced a spectacular U-turn on a key plank of her assisted dying bill.

That is, she’s gearing up to drop a core so-called ‘safeguard’. Crucially, it’s one that’s bill supporters have been banging on about from the beginning. Specifically, this is the requirement for a High Court judge to approve assisted dying decisions.

Naturally though, it hasn’t stopped Leadbeater and company spouting some truly staggeringly hubristic double-speak. Didn’t you know that ditching the involvement of the High Court, and installing a panel of non-partisan experts is practically “Judge/High Court Plus”. Except for the small fact that there’ll be absolutely no judges whatsoever involved in the process. And for that matter, there’ll be largely no High Court either. But, strongest safeguards in the world, am I right?

Assisted dying bill: ‘safeguards’ slipping by the day

It might have you pondering if this was the plan all along. This is especially so, given that from the get-go, the judiciary warned of the “serious logistical problems” of a High Court sign off. Put simply, it was never going to work. The pro-assisted dying bill lobby probably knew that though:

You knew all along the High Court stage was impossible to implement yet you kept repeating it like a mantra. Now you drop it, and have the cheek of calling it “High Court plus”. Have you no shame @kimleadbeater?

— Yuan Yi Zhu (@yuanyi_z) February 10, 2025

People on X rightly ratioed Leadbeater for her blatant propaganda:

This is completely Orwellian. Removing the HC judge from individual decisions cannot be described as “retaining” and nor does minusing the judge render something “judge plus”. The proposals, by their very definition, have the opposite meaning. #assistedsuicide #AssistedDyingBill https://t.co/Wpp43pxWa3 pic.twitter.com/AeqQMwIUVt

— Tomas Thurogood-Hyde (@tomasth89) February 10, 2025

She could have been honest and admitted that the original safeguard proved logistically unviable. Instead she dishonestly tries to spin a watering-down as an enhancement. This slipperiness alone damns the whole process, and the bill. https://t.co/5DOqqQygsc

— Nelson Jones 🇺🇦 👩🏻 𓋹🗽 (@Heresy_Corner) February 11, 2025

🔵 Leadbeater plans to scrap the High Court safeguard that helped secure MPs’ backing for her assisted dying bill at second reading.

She proposes a three-member “Judge Plus” panel—an incongruous name, as it excludes a sitting judge.https://t.co/Lvm09KvK1J

— Janet Eastham (@JanetEastham) February 11, 2025

Of course, it’s hardly the first time Leadbeater has employed purposely vague, and patently misleading terms for the assisted dying bill either. Buckinghamshire Disability Service (BuDS) previously wrote to speaker of the House Lindsay Hoyle highlighting this about the bill’s title itself. The euphemism “End of Life” doesn’t exactly do as it says on the tin. It’s an assisted suicide bill, not a palliative care bill.

And as for Leadbeater’s rank hypocrisy, anyone might think she’s been hanging around with the best and shittiest neoliberal sycophants (yes, we mean the Labour right). We raise you, her spokesperson’s response to the Times warning that she’d do this very thing just two weeks ago:

A fortnight ago The Times splashed the story saying that assisted dying campaigners were looking at dropping the High Court judge requirement

It was met with an outright, on the record denial from Kim Leadbeater’s spokesman

The briefings privately from Leadbeater’s office were… pic.twitter.com/P4WHC9qctD

— Steven Swinford (@Steven_Swinford) February 11, 2025

Another biased plan

As the BBC reported, Leadbeater’s new ‘Judge Plus’ panel will comprise of:

a senior legal figure, but not necessarily a judge, and would also include experts such as psychiatrists and social workers. Their decision could, if necessary, be reviewed by the High Court

Who else is old enough to remember when Leadbeater initially snubbed the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP)? You know, that would be the leading professional body representing, errr, psychiatrists:

As a psychiatrist I want no part in your expert panels

I’m confused though…

How come we’re suddenly experts now when we weren’t initially even asked for our view? https://t.co/VBFRRj6W4G

— Nuwan Dissanayaka (@nuwandiss) February 11, 2025

Moreover, the panels would be:

The panels would be chosen by a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission, led by a High Court judge or senior former judge.

Seems like a solid idea:

Kim Leadbeater on @BBCr4today insists there will a ‘very strict recruitment process’ for her proposed panels for assisted dying or euthanasia.

She says the panels will be full of ‘experts’

But these experts will – of course – be ‘volunteers’ for the job, unlike a Judge pic.twitter.com/dx9v0xUJX2

— teresa smith (@treesey) February 11, 2025

Never have I ever seen a ‘neutral’ assisted dying commission funded by pro-assisted dying corporate capitalists. As the Canary previously highlighted, medical bodies refused to take part in a 2010 assisted dying commission due to its bias. Notably, the majority:

of the commission’s committee were openly in favour of assisted dying.

Leading pro-assisted dying bill lobby group Dignity in Dying’s biggest benefactor – Bernard Lewis of River Island fortune – financed it, naturally.

Slippery MPs and a slippery slope get together for a piss-take scrutiny process

Of course, this is very Kim Reaper Leadbeater, by now the singular most slimy Parliamentary purveyor of Dignity in Dying’s dark money-funded desire to open the door to the slippery slope of assisted suicide. Safe to say, she has hardly been a bastion of honesty and transparency throughout.

From a pro-assisted dying bill stacked committee, to a witness list split 80:20 for it too, the whole process has been nothing but a slickly styled stitch-up for shoving the bill through, no matter the consequences.

And the revelations about Leadbeater’s disingenuous process keep piling up. In an oral evidence session, we learned that former director of public prosecutions Max Hill that Leadbeater selected for legal scrutiny of the bill, had actually been involved in the construction of it in the first place.

Another witness – disabled academic professor Tom Shakespeare – hadn’t declared his connection to prominent pro-assisted suicide group either. The organisation has scrubbed its webpage, but previously listed him as a “distinguished supporter” of its spin-off Disabled Activists for Dignity in Dying (DADiD):

Dignity in Dying’s annual reports reveal a key tactic – establishing groups like “Disabled Activists for DiD”. Turns out oral witness Dr Tom Shakespeare was a “distinguished supporter”. His relationship with DiD was not disclosed. That part of DiD website now deleted 1/ https://t.co/K11pvthouG

— Nikki da Costa (@nmdacosta) February 9, 2025

Beyond a handful of supporters and one paid campaigns officer on its page, there’s no information about its membership numbers. Hardly representative then. Clearly it’s little more than a front group for pushing DiD’s false narrative that disabled people overwhelmingly support assisted dying.

Then, in another duplicitous move, Leadbeater cited a pro-assisted dying bill GP in a recent letter to MPs as well. That GP just so happened to be a trustee of Dignity in Dying. Go figure.

The High Court provision was never going to be enough to keep disabled people safe anyway. But the point here is that Leadbeater is showing up the bill for the inadequate, and poorly drafted shitshow it really is. And that’s just more proof – if we needed it – that what Deaf and Disabled Peoples’ Organisations have been saying has been right all along. This bill, and any assisted suicide legislation inside a society that devalues disabled lives, would always put marginalised people’s lives at risk.

At the end of the day, for all Leadbeater’s big talk, we’re witnessing the slippery slope at work in real-time. Her bill is dangerously not fit for purpose. But of course, she still doesn’t have a single shred of humility to admit that.

Featured image via the Canary