House of Lords ‘must reject’ assisted suicide bill

 (Photo: Getty/iStock)
Calls to the House of Lords to reject assisted suicide have been repeated as peers continue to debate proposals. 
The calls coincide with a second day of debate on Kim Leadbeater’s private member’s bill on Friday. 
The bill was passed by the House of Commons in June and is having its second reading in the House of Lords. 
It seeks to legalise assisted suicide for terminally ill adults in England and Wales who have been given less than six months to live. 
A demonstration against the proposals will see hundreds of pairs of shoes placed outside Parliament to “solemnly represent the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who would die each year by state-sanctioned suicide if the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is made law”. 
The demonstration is supported by Christian Concern, which is one of the many Christian organisations campaigning against the bill. 
Andrea Williams, chief executive of Christian Concern, said: “This bill opens up the option of suicide to anyone who has been given six months or less to live. But many patients outlive doctors’ expectations, sometimes by years. The fact is that not even doctors can reliably predict how long someone has left to live.”A terminal diagnosis is not the end of the story. But Kim Leadbeater’s bill would nudge many vulnerable people towards seeing suicide as a solution to their illness. Hundreds if not thousands of people each year would miss valuable time with loved ones – and in some cases the chance of recovery. “Assisted suicide claims to be compassionate but, in fact, it turns vulnerable people into problems that can be ‘fixed’ with a lethal injection.“The display of shoes outside Parliament will show the devastating reality that we will not be able to get back our family and friends who take the option of assisted suicide.” 
She added, “This deadly bill is in no way compassionate and the House of Lords must reject it.”
The demonstration has been organised by Storm Cecile. She cares for her father, who was given two years to live when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2019. 
“I am a carer for my dad and deeply desire the best for him. While caring takes a large amount of time, money and resources, I recognise that caring for my dad is a gift and every moment is precious,” she said.
“I cannot mentally even bring myself to think that it would be better if he wasn’t here.
“Love looks after people. It sacrifices time and is something we all may carry at one point or another. The solution is not to offer suicide, but to provide better healthcare, better palliative solutions and to have better support for carers.”
The first debate at the second reading stage in the House of Lords was held a week ago, when dozens of peers spoke on the bill. 
According to Right to Life UK, seven in 10 of those speaking on the bill last Friday did so against it. 
Some peers spoke about how difficult it is for doctors to accurately estimate the length of time a person has left to live. One of them was Lord Polak who told the chamber that he had been given six months to live “37 years ago”. 
Others spoke about the misnomer of “assisted dying”. 
Former Prime Minister, Theresa May, said: “This is not an assisted dying bill but an assisted suicide bill. As a society, we believe that suicide is wrong.
“Suicide is wrong, but this bill effectively says suicide is okay. What message does that give to our society? Suicide is not okay. Suicide is wrong. This bill is wrong and […] it should not pass.”
She added that, without a coroner’s report, “there is a danger that this could be used as a cover-up for mistakes made in hospital or for a hospital-acquired infection which has led to an increased likelihood of death”.
“I have a friend who calls it the ‘Licence to Kill Bill’,” she said. 
Baroness Goudie raised similar concerns about inaccurate language. 
“Why is this called by its supporters an assisted dying bill? It is nothing of the sort,” she said. 
“Assistance sounds good, and dying is a natural process which comes to us all. Pain relief and emotional support are vital and uncontroversial.
“However, this Bill is not about that; it is about assisted suicide, and that is altogether a different matter.” 
The chamber heard from the Bishop of London, Dame Sarah Mullally, who is also the former government Chief Nursing Officer.
She told peers that the bill was “deeply flawed” and that a change in the law would “change society”. 
“Any law that introduces choice for a few is not limited in its effect to only those few. If passed, the bill will signal that we are a society that believes that some lives are not worth living,” she said. 
She raised concerns that some people would feel pressured to end their lives or “be offered free assisted death before they are offered the care and equipment that they may live”.
She said she was “deeply concerned that so many in Parliament are not heeding the voices of professional and representative bodies that are raising the alarm”. 
“Above all, the bill fails in its central claim that it delivers choice,” she continued.
“A meaningful choice would see the measures in the bill set alongside equally available, fully funded palliative and social care services. Without that being offered, this choice is an illusion,” she said. 
Speaking after the debate, Lord Jackson of Peterborough said that the level of opposition at second reading was “a clear indication of the direction the bill is heading”. 
“The strength of concern voiced today makes it increasingly unlikely that this bill will pass at third reading, and momentum is clearly against it,” he said. 
Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said, “The large majority of peers speaking in opposition to the bill at second reading suggests the House of Lords is currently significantly more opposed than supportive of the bill.
“Given that the House of Lords can reject the bill, the bill is increasingly looking like it will never become law.
“Vulnerable people in our society need our unwavering protection and the best quality care, not a pathway to assisted suicide.
“Evidence from abroad shows that, if this legislation becomes law, large numbers of vulnerable people nearing the end of life would be pressured or coerced into ending their lives.”