Terminally ill Sophie Blake is among those campaigning tirelessly for change (Image: Phil Harris/PA)
Christmas has come early for opponents of the assisted dying Bill. Having spent the last year complaining that the legislation is being rushed without enough time for proper scrutiny, they have been given the generous gift of 10 extra days for the House of Lords to debate it next year. If used constructively, this should allow time for many more of the 1,000-plus amendments tabled to be considered, and for real progress to be made.
But instead of expressing gratitude, critics are up in arms about “preferential treatment” for what is perhaps the most important Private Member’s Bill to come before Parliament in a generation. This is because, despite MPs having backed the legislation in two major votes, and independent polling showing the majority of the public supports this change, a small group of hardline opponents is hell-bent on derailing the Bill.
Campaigners gathered outside Parliament when MPs backed the Bill for a second time this summer (Image: Ian Vogler)
The staggering number of amendments tabled in the Lords is the most seen in recent parliamentary history — and two thirds have been submitted by just eight peers.
Analysis by the Hansard Society showed the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill received at least four times more amendments per page than any other bill this parliamentary session.
As Dame Esther Rantzen pointed out last week, no one could argue that every one of these amendments represents a genuine attempt to improve the legislation. She called it what it is: “Sabotage.”
One change proposed would require anyone seeking assisted dying, including a 90-year-old man with prostate cancer or a woman with cervical cancer who has had a hysterectomy, to present a negative pregnancy test. Others would effectively ban holidays in the last year of a person’s life, or mandate that their final moments are captured on film.
While some changes are more sensible, peers should heed the warning of England’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Sir Chris Whitty, about the risk of dying people spending their last months “stuck in a bureaucratic thicket”.
Safeguards are necessary but every step added is another hoop that a seriously ill patient must jump through.
Many commentators said the Commons debates on assisted dying showed Parliament at its best, when supporters and opponents spoke passionately while also showing respect for one another and the seriousness of the matter at hand.
Sadly, the tabling of wrecking amendments and attempts to filibuster in the Lords (an accusation opponents have denied) have shown Parliament at its worst.
The Bill’s sponsors Kim Leadbeater and Charlie Falconer hope it can now progress (Image: Jonathan Buckmaster)
It is true that opposition to the Bill has been stronger in the Lords than in the Commons, with around two thirds of speakers during the first debates raising doubts.
If the process played out and peers eventually voted down the Bill then it could be argued that, while constitutionally difficult, this would be a fair result of our parliamentary system in action.
But efforts to kill the Bill in the unelected chamber through gamesmanship and time-wasting are anti-democratic. Those peers involved should be ashamed.
Meanwhile, terminally ill people are watching on in anguish. For some of those with incurable conditions, the outcome of this process is so important they are regularly travelling to Westminster to sit in the public gallery during debates.
Their voices were not heard by the Lords select committee on assisted dying and they have been left feeling powerless as those on the red, padded benches discuss their futures, too often seeming to forget the people this decision will affect most.
Nathaniel Dye, 39, who has stage four bowel cancer, battles through the side effects of chemotherapy to attend whenever possible, despite having been told he may have only months to live.
Sophie Blake, 52, a mother with terminal breast cancer, said this week: “Every single delay is stealing precious time and choice for those who need it now.”
Let us be clear: there is no amount of scrutiny and amendment to this legislation that would satisfy those who are fundamentally opposed to it.
A spokesperson for Right To Life UK, a charitable organisation that opposes abortion, euthanasia and embryo research, said plainly this week: “No amount of time given to the assisted suicide Bill will make it safe.
“It simply is not possible to legislate against the danger of self-coercion and vulnerable people being pressured into assisted suicide.”
The experience of other countries has proven this wrong. And it is why opponents rely on hypothetical scenarios rather than presenting a single documented case of an assisted death involving coercion in any country that has a law similar to the one proposed here.
Critics have tried to portray the Bill as rushed, flawed and the result of a chaotic process. The reality is that it has received more scrutiny than any Private Member’s Bill in recent times, and most government bills. It builds on decades of development of this legislative model and best practice from around the world.
The extra time allocated for debate in the Lords should allow full consideration of further changes to improve this crucial legislation.
It also suggests that the Government, while remaining staunchly neutral on the principle of assisted dying, will not allow the Bill to be so easily killed by those who seek to frustrate the process.
However, the path forward is not yet certain. Reasonable peers must come together to ensure that this determined clique does not continue to bring the upper chamber into disrepute. If such shenanigans are ultimately allowed to end the Bill’s progress, then the Lords will have made the strongest case yet for their own abolition.
Subverting the will of the elected chamber with underhand tactics risks further eroding trust in parliamentary process at a time when polling suggests a large proportion of the country supports reform of the Lords.
The Express has shared the stories of those fighting for assisted dying for the terminally ill — either for themselves or in memory of loved ones who suffered — for almost four years.
Our Give Us Our Last Rights crusade has highlighted the real and tragic experiences of those affected by terminal conditions and bad deaths.
Dozens of events will take place across England on Saturday to mark the anniversary of the historic second reading vote which saw MPs back the principle of assisted dying for the first time.
Perhaps peers should take a moment to reflect on the strength of feeling expressed when hundreds of thousands of people wrote to their MPs and signed our petition.
The effect was so powerful that the Bill is already indirectly improving patient choice. Care Minister Stephen Kinnock this week announced plans to address significant challenges in the palliative care and end-of-life sector, including postcode lotteries for services, avoidable hospital admissions and gaps in 24/7 provision.
The plans also cover community-based advice and support to help more people die in their homes. Charity Sue Ryder described the announcement as a “pivotal moment for end-of-life care”.
Mr Kinnock, who voted in favour of the Bill, has acknowledged that the debate around assisted dying acted as a catalyst for palliative care improvements.
The conversation we have started around greater choice at the end of life was long overdue — and it must not be stifled.
