Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

The eligibility criteria restrict access to terminally ill individuals with less than six months to live, a demographic that is generally already outside the workforce or on long-term sick leave. Consequently, there will be no material change to the labour supply or productivity. While there may be minor secondary effects, such as family caregivers returning to the workforce slightly sooner, these are likely too small to register on a macroeconomic scale.

The government will incur upfront and ongoing costs to establish the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner, the Review Panels, and the associated regulatory framework. However, these costs may be counterbalanced by savings in the NHS, as assisted dying is generally less expensive than prolonged intensive palliative care or hospitalisation during the final months of life. The net fiscal impact depends on the uptake rate and the complexity of the judicial-style review process.

Proponents argue the bill restores justice by allowing individuals control over their suffering, regardless of physical ability to commit suicide unassisted. However, disability rights groups argue it introduces a structural unfairness where vulnerable people may feel pressured to end their lives to avoid being a burden. The bill attempts to mitigate this through strict safeguards, including a specific clause stating disability alone does not constitute terminal illness, and mandatory assessments by social workers and psychiatrists on the Review Panels.

This legislation represents a major expansion of bodily autonomy, allowing mentally competent adults to align their end-of-life experience with their personal values and wishes. It removes the current state prohibition on assisted dying, decriminalising the act for those who meet the strict criteria. Additionally, it respects the liberty of medical professionals by including a 'conscience clause' that ensures no one is under a duty to participate in the process.

For the eligible cohort who desire this option, the bill is expected to drastically improve the quality of end-of-life by removing the fear of a painful or undignified death. However, there is a risk to the psychological welfare of elderly or disabled individuals who may perceive a 'duty to die' or feel devalued by the state offering death as a medical treatment. The requirement to discuss palliative care options aims to ensure that assisted dying is not chosen solely due to a lack of support services.

The legislation focuses entirely on medical ethics, criminal law, and individual rights regarding end-of-life choices. There are no significant implications for carbon emissions, resource usage, or biodiversity resulting from the implementation of this bill.