By P3pharmacy editor Arthur Walsh

This is hardly the most festive of topics, so apologies in advance if you are reading this on the sofa before Indiana Jones comes on. 

But this extremely consequential debate is once more being had in England and Scotland, having already been settled in many other European countries. With a change to the law a more tangible possibility than ever before, it seems worthwhile for us all to work out what we think and why.

A few days after I write this, Westminster representatives will vote on Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at a second reading. If a majority of MPs support it, future stages will nail down the exact procedures to follow for those who “can reasonably be expected” to die within six months and who wish to end their suffering, as well as the safeguards that should be written into the law. 

I’m no legal expert, but the Leadbeater bill looks to be a bare-bones document with much of the detail still to be hashed out. For one thing, the definition of ‘medical practitioners’ seems less than airtight in places, which critics have seized on as a sign that non-doctors could be roped in to sign off on life and death decisions. That probably won’t be the case, but it shows the strength of feeling in this debate. 

Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians are named in the bill. There is a conscience clause that allows them to refuse to provide an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) or play any other part in assisting a patient in their wish to end their life – but if asked by a doctor to accompany them in preparations, would they be obliged to refer requests onwards?

They should be, argues Labour MP Sadik Al-Hassan, a pharmacist with many years’ experience in the community sector. He says it’s the same as with emergency hormonal contraception (EHC): if a pharmacy professional is not prepared to take part in the process they must, to the best of their abilities, signpost to one who is. 

Or else face regulatory consequences, and perhaps legal ones? He doesn’t elaborate on that, but it seems a fair conclusion to draw. I can imagine a few people objecting to that – and the comparison with EHC trivialises the issue. 

It’s not just fuzziness over the demands that may be placed on healthcare professionals that makes me hesitate. There are also the warnings from disability campaigners who say vulnerable people could come under pressure – which appears to happen to some in Canada, where one in 25 deaths are assisted by a doctor. 

There is always a chance the Lords could stall this particular bill, but public sentiment – a recent poll found that 75 per cent in England and Wales favour assisted dying – indicates that the momentum behind the campaign for allowing the terminally ill the option of a dignified death at a time of their choice will not lessen.

I acknowledge that strength of support, but also fear it may be impossible to legislate entirely against rare cases of abuse. Leadbeater’s rushed bill certainly doesn’t give me confidence.