Professor Chris Whitty, England’s Chief Medical Officer, has admitted that he got a key fact wrong in evidence given to a committee of British MPs looking at the UK’s Assisted Suicide proposals.
Prof Whitty last month told MPs that Kim Leadbeater’s Bill would require a higher level of mental capacity for assisted suicide decisions than for other medical choices, however he later made the admission that this was incorrect, as reported by The Daily Telegraph.
In November, a total of 330 MPs voted in favour of moving the Terminally Ill Adults (End Of Life) Bill to the next stage of the legislative process, while 275 voted against it.
Speaking to MPs, Prof Whitty claimed that the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) carried the “absolute expectation” that “the more serious the decision, the greater the level of capacity that someone needs to have”.
However, when he was pressed on the issue by senior barrister, Alex Ruck Keene KC, who said this was incorrect, he retracted the claim. Mr Keene pointed out that the MCA does not impose a stricter requirement for life-or-death decisions compared to less serious medical choices.
On Thursday, Sir Chris penned a letter for the committee, which is currently underway to scrutinise the Bill ahead of its next stage in parliament. He wrote that he could have phrased his evidence to the committee “more clearly.”
However, Conservative MP Danny Kruger told the British newspaper that the correction had come too late – given that MPs had already used Sir Chris’s testimony, given in January, to reject a number of amendments aimed at tightening mental capacity assessments.
“The clarification comes too late for MPs who voted against our amendments based on his assertion that the MCA explicitly requires a higher degree of capacity for a more serious decision. As he admits, it doesn’t,” Mr Kruger said.
The Bill has been criticised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK, who described November’s vote as a “significant societal shift.”
The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) have been among experts to caution that the Act is too permissive for such a profound choice.
In written evidence submitted to the committee, RCPsych argued the Act is “not sufficient for the purposes of this Bill”. Three psychiatrists testified before the committee, stating that the capacity test was too weak to ensure patients were fully capable of choosing to end their life.
Despite this, on 29 January, Sir Chris Whitty urged MPs not to depart from the principles of the 2005 Act, incorrectly stating that it already built in a requirement that more serious decisions would involve a greater level of understanding. His assertion that six out of seven doctors assessing capacity would reach the same conclusion was not backed by psychiatric experts.
RCPsych referred to debate around consent procedures, palliative care and what the passing of legislation could mean for vulnerable people, doctors and the NHS.
RCPsych said that a number of “unanswered questions” remain about “whether it is possible to provide adequate protections and safeguards for all individuals and, if so, what these measures would be. The College believes these details must not be left to the relevant professions to be dealt with through amendments to existing or new codes of practice.”
RCPsych has urged British parliamentarians to “carefully consider outstanding questions about whether a person’s capacity to decide to end their own life can be reliably assessed and the adequacy of consent as a safeguard against coercion in this context.”
“It is also important to consider the potential implications for those with mental disorders, intellectual disabilities and neurodevelopmental conditions (who do not always have good access to palliative care), as well as on suicide prevention efforts, palliative care and the NHS,” it added in a statement.
Nikki da Costa, the former Director of Legislative Affairs at 10 Downing Street, took to social media to say that Prof Whitty’s correction “proves the point – doctor overconfidence is a risk for the vulnerable.”
“This is an insane way to legislate,” the former senior political advisor wrote on X.
“Too late for the debate on the amendments that sought to tackle the problem. Whitty’s evidence was used as justification for rejecting amendments and sticking with a simple threshold of capacity. It was cited multiple times by MPs,” da Costa added.
Others in the UK have voiced serious concerns about the Bill, as the committee continues. It comes as Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the legislation, appealed to critics of the Bill not to use parliamentary process to kill the bill.
Ms Leadbeater last week questioned the need for the amendments tabled the Bill, despite having tabled some 87 amendments herself. In an interview with The Independent last week, Ms Leadbeater said she shares “genuine concerns” about ensuring safeguards are strong, but that MPs must be able to give their final verdict at the third reading.
However, Leadbeater tabled a number of last-minute amendments to the Bill just last week, including scrapping the involvement of a High Court judge and ensuring that a three-member panel comprising of a psychiatrist, a social worker, and a lawyer would make the final decision instead.
Professor Katherine Sleeman, the Laing Galazka Chair in Palliative Care at the Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, King’s College London, reacted on X, stating: “Oh. This really says it all. Complaining about MPs tabling too many amendments, when you yourself have tabled 87 is probably not the best look.”
Professor of Industrial Economics at Nottingham University Business School, David Paton, meanwhile, claimed on X that his analysis showed that the majority of supportive evidence submitted to the committee came from individuals or assisted suicide campaigning groups.
“Of the written evidence on the #assistedsuicide bill submitted by medical & patient groups, 36 were broadly critical and 0 supportive (others were neutral),” Paton wrote.
MP for Twickenham, Murina Wilson, took to X over the weekend, writing: “I wrestled for weeks with how to vote on assisted dying. I was in absolute bits. Yet with every passing day, I’m more convinced I was right to vote against in Nov.”
On Tuesday, the committee consisting of MPs voted 15-8 against amendments put forward by Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Olney, which would have imposed stricter mental capacity checks and barred those with mental illnesses from accessing assisted dying.
It comes as two eminent British professors of psychiatry, both of whom gave evidence at the committee, warned that staff shortages could make the inclusion of psychiatrists unworkable.
Prof Dr Allan House, the emeritus professor of liaison psychiatry at the University of Leeds, said that it was “not at all clear” that Britain had enough psychiatrists to ensure involvement. Prof Gareth Owen, honorary consultant psychiatrist at King’s College in London, also warned this weekend that it was “probably not” feasible for every case to receive a psychiatric assessment “given the current workforce” in the NHS.