Image – Wikimedia Commons
Blogpost by SPUC’s Liam Gibson:
The Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill is deeply flawed, not fit for purpose and a bit of a shambles. After two days of intense debate with roughly 160 speakers, the consensus in the House of Lords is that the Leadbeater Bill cannot be passed in its current state.
The Bill, which received a savage mauling by a substantial majority of the speakers, will now be scrutinised by a special select committee of the House of Lords before it can proceed any further. A motion to delay the passage of the Bill was agreed without a vote. With the tide of opinion running against it, Lord Falconer of Thornton, its sponsor in the Upper Chamber, found it necessary to agree a compromise with opponents rather than risk the Bill running out of time. The motion, tabled by Baroness Berger, to establish a committee to hear from experts not permitted to present evidence to MPs will delay progress until 7 November.
Despite this compromise, opposition to the Bill remains strong with Peers attacking the principle of assisted suicide itself as well as arguing that the draft legislation is badly framed, dangerous and probably unworkable. Several Peers expressed the belief that even with amendments, the Bill cannot be fixed. Lord Green of Deddington, although still undecided, described it as “a bit of a shambles”.
Speaking powerfully about his concerns, Lord Mackinlay of Richborough outlined five serious objections, including the progress of the Bill through the House of Commons, saying:
“From the start, Committee in the other place was stilted in its composition, and many respected institutions that will be operating in the space of the Bill were denied their opportunity for input. What worried me more than anything else were the joyous, tear-flecked celebrations by some parliamentarians of the passing of the Bill in the Commons; it is a Bill of death. I found that quite bizarre and chilling. I should not be surprised, however, as many of the same people are jubilant about the opportunity to home-conduct abortions up to full term without sanction. I celebrate life rather than death.”
He went on to warn about the rapid expansion of assisted dying seen in other countries where eligibility criteria have been widened to allow for more and more people to be legally killed.
“In Belgium, children as young as nine are being euthanised under similar legislation – let me repeat that: in Belgium, children aged nine are being euthanised. I have grave concerns about the human rights industry in this country, where whatever happens in Parliament gets overturned through judicial activism. I am absolutely sure that this would be watered down to death on the state on demand in due course. That is my great fear.”
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe also linked the issue of assisted suicide to abortion, but declared his belief in a “higher power” that gives him freedom to choose. His concerns centred on population control and the environment. This century, he said, has seen growth in the world population “from 6.1 billion to 8.2 billion – a 25% increase in 25 years. “
“Just think what the 2025 numbers would be if abortion had not been legalised or there had not been wide-scale usage and advocacy of contraception. Indeed, the growth of homosexuality throughout society has reduced the number of children that we would have had. Had the churches had their way, we would have had a very much bigger population than we presently have, facing the difficulties we have with climate change.”
Baroness Fox of Buckley was one of several Peers to highlight the repercussions that legalising assisted suicide would have on the field of medicine. “The Bill”, she argued, “unsettles centuries-old medical ethics.”
“It rebrands assisting someone to die as a medical treatment, upending its understood meaning. The Bill rewrites the role of doctors. They will no longer be guided by the ‘Do no harm’ ethos of preserving and protecting life; instead, the Bill mandates that they actively engage in taking a patient’s life by supplying lethal drugs that will kill them. The Bill especially shakes the foundations of society’s attitudes to suicide – and, yes, that is the accurate word; we know this because, at present, intentionally assisting someone to end their life is a criminal offence. So the Bill is forced to amend the Suicide Act 1961 to allow medical professionals to plan, prepare and assist in intentionally ending the lives of a particular group of citizens.”
“…For those who state passionately, ‘My body, my life, my choice’, why back a Bill that limits that choice to the terminally ill? Surely logically, that right should apply to anyone who wants to kill themselves. No doubt this logic will lead to demands to expand the law – God help us once human rights lawyers get involved.”
In summing up for the Official Opposition but speaking in a personal capacity, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar provided a forensic analysis of the Bill’s contradictions, arguing that the arbitrary requirement of a 6-month prognosis was unlikely to withstand a challenge in the courts. He drew attention to the inconsistent statements of the supporters of the Bill on this point.
“I am afraid that we have an inherent contradiction regarding the supporters of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Johnson of Marylebone accepted that the logical outcome was that anyone with a terminal illness should be permitted to avail themselves, but at the same time, we are told that the six-month limit is a fundamental protection. Both points cannot be right at the same time.”
While there’s a long way to go, opponents of the Bill can be pleased with how proceedings have gone so far in the Lords. The Bill’s sponsors are clearly not confident and Lord Falconer even felt it necessary to appeal to the Archbishop of York not to force a vote at Third Reading.
Peers on both sides of the debate highlighted the considerable amount of correspondence that they have received. Lobbying can have a decisive influence on the politicians who will very soon vote on the Bill. As expert evidence is presented to the select committee, members of the Lords also need to hear more from the public about the dangers of passing this Bill.
If you’re reading this and haven’t yet donated to SPUC, please consider helping now. Thank You!
