By Aysu Bicer
LONDON (AA) - The UK government’s suicide prevention adviser on Friday warned that legalizing assisted dying in England and Wales could create significant challenges for suicide prevention efforts.
Prof. Louis Appleby cautioned that allowing assisted dying in some circumstances could undermine the long-standing principle that society should work to prevent all suicides.
Appleby, who chairs the government’s national suicide prevention strategy advisory group, shared his concerns in an interview with The Guardian.
While he did not position himself as an outright opponent of assisted dying, he said it would mark a major shift in how society approaches suicide.
“The suicide prevention consensus is a remarkable thing,” Appleby said. “As a society, we are signed up to the idea that we should do all we can to help (suicidal people) get through. It’s very rarely questioned.” He argued that if the state concedes that some suicides are acceptable, it would be a “huge step” away from this principle.
Appleby also challenged the idea that assisted dying should not be referred to as suicide, pushing back against MPs who found the term offensive in this context.
If the bill passes, Appleby suggested MPs consider introducing a cooling-off period, a safeguard already used in some other jurisdictions, before an assisted death request is granted.
While he acknowledged the emotional weight of stories from terminally ill individuals seeking the right to an assisted death, he warned that legalization could lead to what he described as a “validated suicide.”
As MPs prepare to debate further amendments to the bill next week, discussions will focus on whether to replace case-by-case scrutiny by a high court judge with a panel of experts.
The proposed panel would include a senior legal figure, a psychiatrist, and a social worker to assess each request, particularly in cases involving domestic violence or questions about mental capacity.
MP Kim Leadbeater, who proposed the changes, has faced criticism from some MPs who see it as a potential weakening of safeguards.
However, supporters argue that involving multiple experts would strengthen protections rather than dilute them.