There is something distasteful about the way supporters of the Assisted Dying Bill are trying to bulldoze this chaotic piece of legislation through Parliament.

The fact that its proposer, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, tabled no fewer than 44 amendments when the Bill returned to the Commons yesterday shows just how dangerously unformed it is.

She shows every sign of making it up as she goes along, sowing doubt and confusion with each faltering step.

Yet opponents expressing concern over the Bill’s manifold shortcomings are accused of scaremongering or standing in the way of the ‘human right’ to choose the timing and manner of one’s death.

It’s a strangely inverted form of moral blackmail when those who express unease about giving the state the power to end the lives of its citizens are branded as ‘inhumane’.

The Bill has undergone massive change since passing its second reading in November.

Not least of these was ditching the requirement that a High Court judge had to approve any assisted dying decision.

Instead, that final endorsement would now be left to an ‘expert panel’, chaired by a lawyer and including a social worker and psychiatrist.

Ms Leadbeater may be sincere, but she is inexperienced and wholly unqualified to steer a Bill of such huge import through Parliament

Pro-assisted dying campaigners gathered outside Parliament earlier this week

Protesters against the assisted dying bill warn it could lead to a ‘slippery slope’ towards suicide

It is symptomatic of this dog’s dinner of a Bill that the Royal College of Psychiatrists were not consulted in advance of the change.

If they had been, Ms Leadbeater would have known they are against it, warning that the mentally ill could use the legislation to facilitate suicide.

Ms Leadbeater said at the outset there would be no ‘slippery slope’ towards suicide, but many believe we are already on one.

As Tory MP Rebecca Paul put it during yesterday’s debate: ‘We have moved from a proposal to provide a humane end to someone’s pain in the last months of their life to providing an assisted death service to those who choose it for any reason.’

In ethical, legal and practical terms there could not be a more complex or emotionally charged issue than allowing people the right to die.

Anyone who has seen a friend or relative in extreme pain and discomfort at the end of life will understand the power of the argument.

But that is precisely why any change in legislation must be carefully and dispassionately thought through – both benefits and pitfalls.

In Canada and Holland, where assisted suicide has been legal for some years, it now accounts for around 5 per cent of all deaths.

In Canada and Holland, where assisted suicide has been legal for some years, it now accounts for around 5 per cent of all deaths

Included in the toll are those with autism, depression, dementia, anorexia and elderly who feel (or are made to feel) they have become a burden. Do we want to go in that direction?

One of the fundamental problems with the proposed legislation is that it springs from a private member’s bill, rather than being tabled by government.

This means no Whitehall groundwork was done in advance, nor any proper debate held.

Ms Leadbeater may be sincere, but she is inexperienced and wholly unqualified to steer a Bill of such huge import through Parliament.

In encouraging her, Sir Keir Starmer bears much of the blame for this fiasco. If he believed the time was right for a full debate on assisted dying, he should have brought it forward himself, not cravenly slip it in through the back door.

Such lack of political courage and commitment speaks volumes about his government. And it has consequences.

In its current form, this Bill is not only dangerous, it’s unworkable.