Peers have expressed strong concern over Lord Falconer’s "dangerous" and "deeply flawed" Assisted Dying Bill during a debate in the House of Lords on Friday (18th July).
'Frightening'
In a powerful address, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, who uses a wheelchair and has spinal muscular atrophy, said: "The Bill offers no comfort to me. It frightens me because, in periods of greatest difficulty, I know that I might be tempted to use it. It only adds to the burdens and challenges which life holds for me."
Baroness Campbell added that the Bill would "bring back outdated beliefs" which only serve to devalue the lives of vulnerable people, and called for better medical, practical and emotional support for the disabled people and terminally ill.
"False choice"
"The Bill purports to offer choice—the option of premature death instead of pain, suffering and disempowerment—but it is a false choice," she said. "That is not choice. Pain, suffering and disempowerment are treatable—I have to believe that—and they should always be treated. My long experience of progressive deterioration has taught me that there is no situation that cannot be improved."
"Myth"
Disabled Peer Baroness Grey-Thompson, who opposed the Bill said there was a “myth that our lives are so tragic or painful that we must want to end them.”
“Just this week I was told, ‘You must have wanted to kill yourself many times in your life’. No, I have not.”
Safeguards "inadequate"
Crossbench Peer Lord Hylton echoed widespread concerns that the safeguards proposed in the Bill were "inadequate" - a view which he said was supported by "many eminently qualified doctors and other physicians."
"I think it’s a bad and dangerous Bill and have always felt that. I have received letters from all over the country against the Bill and the evidence from countries where therapeutic killing is legal is far from reassuring," he said.
Lord Falconer's Bill seeks to permit doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to 'mentally competent' patients who have less than six months to live and a 'settled wish' to die, in order to enable them to take their own lives.
"Inaccuracy"
Baroness Finlay, who cared for dying patients as part of her work for more than 25 years, highlighted concerns over the risk of inaccuracy when assessing the life expectancy of terminally ill patients.
"Let us take a prognosis of six months: there is no accurate test at all. Even a best guess is so surrounded with inaccuracy that the only honest answer to the question, “How long have I got?”, is to say, “I honestly can’t tell”. Even of those thought to be likely to die within 48 hours, about 4% improve and some even go home," she said.
"Gift from God"
Christian Peer Lord Mawhinney said “life stems from and is a gift from God, and that this belief, widely shared, should govern our views on the end of life as it pervades the thoughts of many at the wonder of birth.”
At the end of the debate, which lasted almost ten hours, Members of the House of Lords decided, without a vote, that the Bill should be sent to Committee stage for further scrutiny.
The outcome follows a recent Supreme Court ruling in the cases of Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lamb which suggested that Parliament reconsider the law surrounding assisted suicide.
Peers on both sides of the debate took the view that the ruling requires the Assisted Dying Bill to be thoroughly considered by Parliament. For this reason, Peers who opposed the Bill in principle decided not to vote it down on Friday, therefore enabling the proposals to be examined further at Committee stage. The Bill is not expected to reach this stage until November.
Unlikely to become law
It is unlikely that the Bill will ever become law in light of both the strength of opposition to the proposals and the limited Parliamentary time available before the next General Election.
Responding to the outcome of the debate, Andrea Williams of Christian Concern said:
"Widespread media coverage in recent days, coming on top of comments by Supreme Court Judges, has raised the profile of the issue of Assisted Suicide. So it is perhaps unsurprising that the House of Lords has decided to give further time to scrutinise the Bill, especially since the high number of Peers who wished to speak meant that contributions had to be so short.
"Proper scrutiny"
“We urge the Lords to ensure that proper scrutiny does now take place. This is a matter of life and death. It cannot be decided on the basis of sound-bites nor simply on the basis of sentiment, however much we all wish to see an end to suffering. The underlying principles and inevitable consequences of this Bill need to be teased out. When the arguments against are carefully examined, support for Assisted Suicide plummets. We look forward to the Committee Stage exposing the many flaws in this Bill.
“Whatever the intention, this Bill would not promote compassion but would create a climate of fear and even cruelty. The major disabled groups recognise the immense pressure that this Bill would place on people to consider ending their life prematurely. People’s lives are made no less valuable because of illness and it would be a sad day if our law stopped recognising this fact. If this Bill were voted through, it would be a disaster for terminally and severely ill people across the country. We must maintain proper protections for those who are vulnerable.
"Compassion"
“True compassion demands that we re-double our efforts to care for those who are in need not offer or even encourage them to kill themselves. There is all the difference in the world between withdrawing treatment by consent and actively facilitating killing. If we allow doctors to be moved from being protectors of life to catalysts of death we will shatter the bond of trust between doctor and patient.
"Hospice and palliative care in this country is the best in the world, yet it is still patchy and sadly under-resourced. A truly compassionate and humane response to those in their latter days would be to provide more palliative care resources across the UK and not to give vulnerable people - who may feel they are a burden to loved ones - the resources through doctors to kill themselves.
"The cases of individuals like Tony Nicklinson and others are heart-breaking but the Assisted Suicide Bill does not deal with such cases. In fact it would only make things worse, not better. For people with severe or terminal illness, the way to make their lives better is just that: to make their life better, not to end it.
"Precious"
"Life is a precious gift from God. Once we decide that we can take His place we open the door to fear and oppression. This Bill reflects an outlook on life that enthrones personal autonomy above public safety; that sees no meaning or purpose in suffering; that appears profoundly naïve about the abuse of elderly and disabled people, and that looks forward to no future beyond the grave. It is a counsel of despair that contrasts starkly with the faith, hope and love of the Christian Gospel."