Peers hell-bent on killing the assisted dying Bill should be ashamed | Politics | News

Christmas has come early for opponents of the assisted dying bill. Having spent the past year complaining that legislation was rushed through without enough time for proper scrutiny, they have been given the generous gift of 10 extra days in the House of Lords to debate the legislation next year. If used constructively, this will allow time for more of the 1,000+ amendments on the table to be considered and real progress to be made.

But instead of expressing gratitude, critics took to task for “preferential treatment” for perhaps the most significant Private Members Bill to come before Parliament in a generation. That’s because, despite MPs backing the legislation by two landslides and independent polls showing a majority of people support the change, a small group of hard-line opponents are determined to derail the bill.

The staggering number of amendments tabled in the Lords is among the most in recent parliamentary history, with two-thirds of them introduced by just eight MPs.

Analysis by the Hansard Society showed that 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 can argue that each of these changes is a genuine attempt to improve the legislation. He called it “Sabotage”.

One proposed change would require anyone seeking assisted death to present a negative pregnancy test, including a 90-year-old man with prostate cancer or a woman with cervical cancer who has had a hysterectomy. Others may effectively ban holidays during the last year of a person’s life or require their final moments to be filmed.

While some changes might make more sense, colleagues need to heed England’s Chief Medical Officer Professor Sir Chris Whitty’s warning about the risk of dying people spending their final months “stuck in a bureaucratic thicket”.

Precautions are necessary, but each added step is another hoop a seriously ill patient must jump through.

Many commentators said the House of Commons debates on assisted dying showed Parliament at its best, with supporters and opponents speaking passionately, while also showing respect for each other and demonstrating the seriousness of the issue at hand.

Unfortunately, the tabling of disruptive amendments and attempts to rig the Lords (a charge rejected by opponents) showed Parliament at its worst.

It is true that opposition to the bill was stronger in the House of Lords than in the Commons, with around two-thirds of speakers casting doubt on it during the first debates.

If the process continued and MPs eventually rejected the bill, it could be argued that, although constitutionally difficult, this would be a fair outcome of the workings of our parliamentary system.

But efforts to kill the bill through gamesmanship and waste of time in the unelected parliament are anti-democratic. The friends involved should be ashamed.

Meanwhile, terminally ill patients watch in pain. For some of those with incurable conditions, the outcome of this process is so important that they regularly travel to Westminster to sit in the public gallery during debates.

Their voices have not been heard by the Lord’s select committee on assisted dying, and they have been left feeling powerless as they debate their future in red, padded benches, often seeming to forget the people this decision will affect the most.

Nathaniel Dye, 39, who has stage four bowel cancer, is struggling with the side effects of chemotherapy and attending as much as possible, even though he was told he only had a few months to live.

Sophie Blake, 52, a mother with terminal breast cancer, said this week: “Every delay robs precious time and choice of those who need it now.”

Let’s be clear: There is no review or change in this legislation that would satisfy those who are essentially opposed to it.

A spokesman for Right To Life UK, a charity that opposes abortion, euthanasia and embryo research, said bluntly this week: “No amount of time given to the assisted suicide bill will make it safe.

“It is simply not possible to legislate against the danger of self-inflicted force and the coercion of vulnerable people into assisted suicide.”

The experience of other countries has proven this wrong. And that’s why opponents rely on hypothetical scenarios rather than presenting a single documented case of assisted dying involving coercion in any country with a law similar to the one proposed here.

Critics have tried to portray the bill as the result of a rushed, flawed and chaotic process. The truth is that it has been subject to more scrutiny than any Private Member’s Bill and most government bills in recent times. It is based on decades of development of this legislative model and best practices from around the world.

The extra time allocated for debate in the Lords should enable further amendments to improve this important legislation to be fully considered.

It also suggests that the Government, while remaining neutral on the principle of assisted dying, will not allow the bill to be so easily destroyed by those who wish to obstruct the process.

But the path forward is not yet clear. Reasonable colleagues need to come together to ensure that this determined clique does not continue to bring the upper house into disrepute. If such shenanigans are ultimately allowed to doom the Bill’s progress, then the Lords will have made the strongest case yet for their own repeal.

Subverting the will of the elected chamber through underhanded tactics risks further undermining confidence in the parliamentary process at a time when polls show most of the country backs the Lords Reform.

For almost four years, the Express has shared the stories of those fighting for assisted dying for terminally ill patients – either for themselves or in memory of their suffering loved ones.

Our Give Us Our Last Rights campaign highlighted the real and tragic experiences of those affected by lethal conditions and terrible deaths.

Dozens of events will be held across England on Saturday to mark the anniversary of the historic second reading vote in which MPs first brought back the principle of assisted dying.

Perhaps our peers should give some thought to the strength of the sentiment expressed by hundreds of thousands of people writing to their MPs and signing our petition.

The effect was so strong that the bill already indirectly improves patient choice. Care Minister Stephen Kinnock this week announced plans to address key challenges in the palliative care and end-of-life sector, including postcode lotteries for services, avoidable hospital admissions and gaps in 24/7 care.

The plans also include community-based advice and support to help more people die at home. Charity Sue Ryder described the announcement as “a pivotal moment for end-of-life care”.

Mr Kinnock, who voted in favor of the bill, acknowledged that the debate on assisted dying had served as a catalyst for improving palliative care.

The conversation we started about more options at the end of life is long overdue and should not be suppressed.