Left image – Wikimedia Commons: Official portrait of Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Blogpost by SPUC’s Liam Gibson:
After a debate last week that threatened to derail the passage of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill, the sponsors of the controversial legislation will be hoping for a better outcome this Friday as Peers gather for the second day of the crucial debate.
During the five-hour discussion on 12 September, nearly 90 peers spoke, with roughly two-thirds expressing their opposition. Yet it was not just the scathing attacks of its critics, but the blunt admissions of the Bill’s supporters, that may have seriously damaged its chances of becoming law.
Despite the attempts by Lord Falconer of Thornton to reassure Peers that the Bill would not lead to a gradual descent into full-scale euthanasia, his arguments were almost immediately undermined when one supporter after another promoted the right to choose when and how to die. One of the first to speak in support of the Bill was Baroness Murphy. After describing it as based on the supposedly limited Oregon model, she admitted that she would have happily backed a Bill based on the Canadian system that, in less than 10 years, has resulted in one of the highest assisted death rates in the world. She said:
“Other jurisdictions have gone for another model, which I would broadly call the Canada model—a rather wider scheme, which I would have supported strongly.”
“My problem with this Bill is what the Commons has done to it. …it is now hedged around with so many so-called safeguards that have been inserted that it might prove to be unwieldy if not unworkable.”
“The Bill is very narrow in its criteria for eligibility. I am content to go through with this Bill as it is, but I am one who would like to see in the future an expansion of eligibility criteria to support people with irremediable diagnoses, such as Tony Nicklinson and other people with locked-in syndrome. …Nevertheless, I want to see this Bill go through, and hope it becomes legislation as soon as possible. …Let us try to get this Bill through, and then at least we can make some progress…”
As with the previous debates in the House of Commons, most of those who spoke in favour of legalisation emphasised choice and individual autonomy. The Duke of Wellington also argued that the safeguards in the Bill were too onerous.
“I am concerned that this lengthy and detailed process will be difficult, particularly for people who might be described as vulnerable. I question whether the Bill, in trying to create sufficient safeguards, has not in fact exposed the patient to further anxiety, distress and probably pain. The Bill is drafted to give a choice to the patient about how they wish to die. The current law does not give patients that choice. The patient should have a choice, and therefore I support the Bill. It would clearly be wrong for a patient to be pressured to seek an assisted death, but it would be equally wrong for a patient who is terminally ill and in pain to be put off seeking assistance because the process of application is too complex and lengthy.”
However, Lord Herbert of South Downs (Conservative) drew attention to the implications of such arguments. He asked Peers:
“If you believe that personal autonomy, the right to choose death, is the overarching principle, why should the law logically stop at the terminally ill? What about the terminally miserable?”
Labour Peer, Lord Hacking, also highlighted the apparent contradiction between Lord Falconer’s claim that “[t]his legislation is designed to last for the ages” and its supporters’ focus on personal choice. After acknowledging the safeguards and the requirement for a terminal prognosis of six months or less, he said:
“…these provisions do not cover those with neurological disorders. I refer to multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease, muscular dystrophy and advanced Parkinson’s. These are all terrible diseases, where the patient loses all control of their body movement, but they have no direct expectation of death.”
He went on to outline the danger he saw if the UK decided to follow the path taken by other jurisdictions, saying:
“My concern about the Bill, if passed, is that inevitably its terms will be extended. That is exactly what has happened in Belgium, the Netherlands and the US state of Oregon, all of which have had assisted dying legislation for over 20 years. One can expect the lowering of the age from 18 years and the inclusion of many more who do not have terminal illness. The prospects for extending this Bill are never-ending.”
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (a Cross Bencher) made a similar point, stating:
“It seems to me clear that, if the desire is to relieve people of unbearable suffering and they have the right to choose whether they live or die, the logic of the argument—if you like, the argument of compassion—is absolutely inescapable: that a Bill more along the lines of the one in Canada or the Netherlands is the only one that will do what is needed. If this Bill goes through, there will be inevitable pressure to amend it to include unbearable suffering of many kinds, physical and mental, not perhaps in the next year or two but certainly within a few years. It is inevitable because the logic of compassion is even more strongly in favour of such a Bill than it is in favour of the present one.”
While the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill is presented by its sponsors as a cautious reform, many of those in favour spoke openly during the Lords debate of a much wider horizon: expansions to include non‑terminal suffering, mental illness, younger people, dementia, or even the “terminally miserable”. These admissions fuel concern that once legalised, the current limits will be difficult to maintain. As the Bill enters its committee stage in the House of Lords, it seems increasingly clear that its opponents recognise that this Bill would cross a Rubicon, with grave implications not just for the terminally ill but for the whole of society.
