SPUC is accusing the House of Lords of showing a complacent disregard for the lives of the sick and disabled by allowing a Bill to legalise assisted suicide to move forward on Friday without a vote. SPUC says Baroness Meacher's Assisted Dying Bill is a threat to vulnerable people who could be pressured into ending their lives. Parliamentary convention, however, meant the Bill moved forward unopposed.
Michael Robinson, SPUC’s Director of Public Affairs, said: “It is disappointing and disturbing that Peers have allowed this dangerous Bill to proceed to the next stage. As legislators, they have a responsibility to protect everyone equally, including the most vulnerable. Changing our laws on assisted suicide would put the lives of the sick, elderly and disabled at terrible risk. It would send a message that some lives are valuable and worthy of respect while others don’t deserve the same level of care and legal protection.
“Although Baroness Meacher urged peers not to consider the slippery slope seen in ‘Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Spain, Colombia and elsewhere’ several speakers raised the judicial expansion of assisted suicide laws that followed legalisation in other countries.
“As numerous speakers in the debate pointed out, there is abundant evidence of the dangers of assisted suicide. We know that in countries where it’s been normalised, many vulnerable people, feel pressured into taking their own lives to avoid becoming a burden,” said Mr Robinson.
An open letter from Dr Paul Saba physician and author from Canada was referred to repeatedly during the debate. Dr Saba’s letter states:
“When Canada legalised assisted dying in 2016, it was supposed to be for only a“few” terminal illness patients with only days to live. At the end of 2020, over 21,500 Canadians had their lives ended by physician-assisted dying. Since March of this year, the law has been further expanded to those with disabilities with years to live and in less than two years those with mental illness will be eligible for assisted dying. As a doctor, I know just how dangerous it is when killing patients become part of the healthcare system. Physicians are not God. When doctors give a patient a diagnosis, we can be wrong. In fact, errors in diagnosis for severe, life-threatening conditions may be as high as twenty per cent.”
Critics of the Bill warned of the radical cultural change it would usher in. Lord Herbert of South Downs argued that legislating to permit the taking of a patient’s life crossed the Rubicon and warned that the Bill would introduce for the first time “the idea that a patient’s life may be taken, albeit with their consent.”
“Life, in some circumstances, is no longer to be protected by an inviolate principle, but rather by administrative safeguards and term limits. The fear is not only that those safeguards may prove inadequate, that vulnerable people may be exploited and encouraged to end their lives and that, in reality, choice over death has been given to others, or that the time limits are essentially arbitrary, it is also that the safeguards will steadily be eroded. Once the utilitarian argument has asserted itself, we will move inexorably towards a world where the worth of life is measured and questioned,” Lord Herbert said.
Reacting to the outcome of the debate Mr Robinson added: “Thirty-four per cent of Canadians killed by assisted suicide said they feared being a burden on family and carers. We cannot allow that to happen here. We’re calling on politicians to listen to the evidence from other jurisdictions, to take seriously their duty to protect the public welfare and reject this attempt to legalise assisted suicide.”
The Bill will now proceed to committee stage where it is expected to face a considerable number of amendments.