Assisted deaths not being automatically referred to a coroner for investigation has been branded “dangerous” and “frankly absurd” by the former chief coroner for England and Wales.
Retired judge Thomas Teague told peers at a House of Lords select committee that the current draft legislation to legalise assisted dying risks making coercion easier and for some cases to ” slip through” if coroners are not involved as the default.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill currently states that an assisted death would not be classified as an “unnatural death” and therefore would not require automatic investigation by a coroner.
The Royal College of Pathologists and Mr Teague have previously voiced their opposition to this element of the Bill and both gave further evidence to peers on Thursday.
Mr Teague described it as a ” retrograde step” to have deaths looked at only by medical examiners, arguing coroners “are best equipped to pursue wider and deeper inquiries than purely medical ones, and can investigate the background of a case, can seek evidence from different sources, other than medical sources”.
He warned that categorising assisted deaths, which he said “are in reality, deaths by suicide”, as natural deaths could have the “unfortunate and unintended consequence of tending to obscure and conceal those risks, and of making it easier for persons who want, for example, to exercise coercion or pressure or deception to do so”.
He said having a filter system of medical examiners looking at deaths and deciding which ones to refer to a coroner presents “an obvious risk, I would suggest, that cases that ought to go to the coroner will slip through” because medical examiners would be applying “a less rigorous form of scrutiny and a much narrower form of scrutiny” as per the scope of what their role allows for and what they are trained to do.
He added: “That is why it’s so important these matters should stay with coroners and, indeed, it is why it is dangerous, in my view, to take any element of control over the investigation away from coroners.”
He said clause 38 of the Bill as it stands was effectively reversing part of a system for scrutinising deaths that had been 200 years in the making and described the proposed approach as “frankly absurd”.
Dr Suzy Lishman, from the Royal College of Pathologists, when asked about whether it would be safe to remove coronial oversight, told the committee: “No, I don’t believe it would be safe.”
She said medical examiners are trained to scrutinise patient care, rather than trying to identify discrepancies in the legal process around assisted dying.
She told peers: “Lawyers, not doctors, are the most appropriate professionals to review assisted deaths.”
Read More