‘Not democratic’: opponents and backers of assisted dying bill remain divided | Assisted dying

A.Amid a failed bid to introduce new laws allowing assisted dying for terminally ill patients with less than six months to live, campaigners on both sides of the debate have expressed their anger and frustration with the other side.

Supporters, including those of the terminally ill, blamed the failure of the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill passed in the House of Commons on sabotage by a handful of unelected colleagues.

But opponents, including MPs, peers and disabled activists, argued the proposed legislation failed because it was poorly drafted and did not address practical concerns about how assisted dying would work in practice.

Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said a handful of her colleagues, whom she described as “fierce opponents of assisted dying”, dominated debates in the Lords and were pouring in amendments to get the bill through. “It is absolutely shameless what a small group, comprising less than 1% of the unelected voters in the upper house, is doing,” he added. “Their role is to investigate, not prevent.”

Hannah Slater, 38, who has terminal breast cancer, described the bill’s failure as “undemocratic”. “It’s very devastating for people who want to decide how we die when we have a terminal illness. To have that choice taken away at the last minute is very, very frustrating. It feels really cruel and unfair.”

But one of the seven members most criticized by supporters of the bill said he and other opponents were being unfairly criticized. Tanni Gray-Thompson, a former Paralympian who has raised concerns such as the effectiveness of life-ending drugs and their administration during pregnancy, said: “The bill fell because it was poorly written. It needs to be much, much stricter than what we have.”

Grey-Thompson said criticism of the 1,200 amendments added to the bill failed to acknowledge the complexity of the process. An objection would require multiple amendments to all relevant sections of the proposed legislation. For example, the amendment regarding the use of the term “disabled people” instead of disabled people in the draft law required 12 separate changes.

“Our role is to kind of look at the geeky technical stuff. I think it’s been difficult because the pressure to get things done has been pretty intense. It’s not just a handful of people who are against it.”

Disability rights campaigner Pete Donnelly praised the changes to the precedents, adding that without them the legislation would have been “waived” without adequate scrutiny. Concerned about the extension of assisted dying legislation to people with disabilities, Donnelly described the bill as “unsafe”. [and] lethal”.

“This should be introduced as a government bill so that it can be put through a process where it can be fully scrutinised. Because at the moment it’s a kind of skeleton legislation with a lot of loopholes, whether it’s in terms of process, in terms of safety measures, in terms of drugs to be used.”

Labor MP Josh Fenton-Glynn, who abstained from the second Commons reading of the bill, said he thought the bill still lacked adequate safeguards to protect terminally ill patients from pressure from relatives.

Fenton-Glynn, a member of the health select committee, said: “Ultimately, I think any advocate of assisted dying would want to see a bill that is safe and workable, and I don’t think there is. I would be very happy if they made a good faith attempt to solve some of these problems, but stubbornly reintroducing the same bill with the same problems gives us a choice between voting against a dangerous bill or not. My position will sadly not change.”

Labor member Luciana Berger said the bill should be subject to the same pre-legislative scrutiny as other private members’ bills on conscience matters. For example, the private member’s bill introducing abortion and stopping the death penalty “had a committee before the bill came before the House of Commons,” he said.

“Essentially, they’ve reiterated this really important piece of pre-legislative scrutiny to make sure that the bill has already engaged with the professional bodies whose members will be responsible for introducing the bill, and to make sure that the legislation reflects what can be done in practice.”

Andrew Copson, chief executive of Humanists UK, said: “No one can seriously claim that this bill has not been adequately scrutinised. Even before it reaches the Lords, assisted dying has faced unprecedented scrutiny, more than any private members’ bill in history. Opponents often speak as if this is a completely new question, when in reality assisted dying laws are already in force in more than 36 jurisdictions serving hundreds of millions of people. “This is not one of the most scrutinized reforms in parliament, but the most “At least it is one of the most studied reforms.”