The High Court should not be asked to review assisted dying cases, a former Supreme Court Justice has said.
Kim Leadbeater has described her Bill as the only one in the world with “three layers of scrutiny” in the form of sign-off by two doctors and a High Court judge.
But giving evidence to a committee of MPs, Lord Sumption said such a requirement was “unnecessary and in some respect undesirable”.
Describing the Bill’s procedural provisions as “over-engineered”, he said this extra layer of scrutiny in fact “confers a protection which is largely illusory”.
Lord Sumption, who sat in the Supreme Court for six years until 2018, said that overall he supported the Bill’s principles.
But he warned that coercion was “extraordinarily difficult to detect”. He added: “We have to live with the limitations of what human beings can do.
“So that in the end, I have come down in favour of the principle behind this Bill, but I regard it as an extremely difficult balance to draw, notably for that reason.”
The committee also questioned Dr Lewis Graham, an expert in human rights law at Cambridge University, about fears that eligibility criteria could be widened through appeals to the European Court of Human Rights.
He said courts had in the past been very deferential to Parliament when handling assisted dying cases and any challenges were unlikely to be successful.
Dr Graham also agreed that the Bill contained more safeguards than similar legislation in other European countries, which had been found compatible with human rights law.
The committee also heard from Fazilet Hadi, head of policy at Disability Rights UK, who said her organisation opposed the Bill.
She said that too often doctors devalue the lives of people who are disabled because they cannot be cured.
“Giving them the powers to maybe steer us towards assisted dying…they’re not a group who is always on the side of people with disabilities,” she added.
“We do need to note that this Bill is going to be plunged into a society that has deep, entrenched health inequalities that don’t play out well for people who are poorer.”
However, Sir Tom Shakespeare, a sociologist and disability researcher who has achondroplasia, said many disabled people supported assisted dying.
The fact that the Bill is limited to terminal illness “should give a sense of safety to disabled people”, he said. And he argued that disabled people who were also terminally ill should have choice and control over their lives.
Sir Tom added: “They are going to die anyway but it removes the fear and reality of a difficult, unpleasant and undignified death.”
Dr Miro Griffiths questioned whether a disabled person who stops using medical support such as ventilation machines would then be considered terminally ill.
He also raised concerns that disabled people would experience “societal coercion” to opt for assisted dying.
The committee also heard from more end-of-life care experts, including Hospice UK chief executive Toby Porter.
Asked about the argument of some opponents that we should not legalise assisted dying until palliative care is better, he said: “People pointing out problems with palliative care in the UK is not a pro or an anti position in this debate, it’s a statement of fact.”
Mr Porter added that it would be a ”moral and practical disgrace” if anyone chose an assisted death because of real or imagined fear that they would not get the right end-of-life care.
And he welcomed that fact that many MPs who spoke during the Commons debate in November agreed that palliative care must be improved regardless of whether assisted dying is legalised.
