(Photo: Unsplash)
Opponents of Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill continue to hope in its defeat after it faced significant opposition in the House of Lords.
Two days of debate in the upper chamber concluded on Friday with peers voting to send it to a dedicated select committee for further scrutiny.
An analysis by Right to Life UK of 155 speeches given by peers across the two days found that a majority spoke out against the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
The bill seeks to legalise assisted suicide for terminally ill adults who have been given less than six months to live.
The decision by the Lords to further scrutinise the proposals in a committee has been hailed as a “significant win” for opponents.
Alisdair Hungerford-Morgan, Chief Executive Officer at Right To Life UK, said, “The large majority of peers speaking in opposition to the bill across the two days of 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 is in jeopardy and will never become law.”
He said that with hospices already facing cuts this year, and the NHS in a parlous state, legalising assisted suicide would be “a disaster waiting to happen”.
“Vulnerable people in our society need our unwavering protection and the best quality care, not a pathway to assisted suicide,” he said.
“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.”
During the debate, Baroness Finlay, former head of the British Medical Association, said that the bill “does not improve patient choice or control”.
Drawing on her experience as an MP, Baroness Berger warned peers that, sadly, there are people who want family members to die or who feel they are a burden.
Lord Frost warned that legalising assisted suicide would shatter the nation’s entire ethical framework and lead to “utilitarianism” where “none of us” would be safe.
Former First Minister of Northern Ireland, Baroness Foster, said: “The two days of debate at Second Reading have shown just how strongly this Bill is opposed across the House. Peer after peer spoke about the dangers it poses and the harm it would inflict on the most vulnerable.
“Given this widespread opposition, it will be an uphill struggle for those backing the bill to get it through a dedicated select committee and then all its remaining stages before the end of the Parliamentary session.”
Former Paralympian, Baroness Grey-Thompson, said: “The message from the two days of Second Reading is unequivocal: we must protect the most disadvantaged in society.”
Responding to the debate, policy head at Christian charity CARE and former MP, Caroline Ansell, said: “The assisted suicide bill, or ‘license to kill bill’ as it was termed last week, has again been exposed as deeply and fundamentally flawed both in principle and in practice.
“For the second week in a row, a clear majority of peers stood up at second reading to highlight the very real dangers in this seismic social change.”
She continued, “For me, having represented Eastbourne and gone out on patrol with Beachy Head Chaplains, the stand-out speech was Lord Moore’s as he described their life-saving work at the cliff edge.
“This bill, which asserts that some suicides are ‘dignified’, risks fatally undermining suicide prevention work all around the country.”
Dr Gordon Macdonald, CEO of Care Not Killing, said, “We fully support peers being given the time and space they need to properly scrutinise this legislation, without Government interference or pressure from the whips.
“If they are not given this time or are unable to fix this badly drafted legislation, then, as was made clear by several peers, there is only one option open to them.
“They must vote down Kim Leadbeater’s dangerous Assisted Dying Bill and focus on fixing the UK’s broken palliative care system.”
Assisted suicide bill faces ‘uphill struggle’ after Lords send it to committee for scrutiny
