House of Lords ‘must reject’ assisted suicide bill

Calls to the House of Lords to reject assisted suicide have been repeated as peers proceed 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 within the House of Lords. 

It seeks to legalise assisted suicide for terminally in poor health adults in England and Wales who’ve been given lower than six months to live. 

An indication against the proposals will see tons of of pairs of shoes placed outside Parliament to “solemnly represent the tons of, if not 1000’s, of people that would die every 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 among the numerous Christian organisations campaigning against the bill. 

Andrea Williams, chief executive of Christian Concern, said: “This bill opens up the choice 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 just not the tip of the story. But Kim Leadbeater’s bill would nudge many vulnerable people towards seeing suicide as an answer to their illness. Hundreds if not 1000’s of individuals every year would miss priceless time with family members – and in some cases the possibility of recovery. 

“Assisted suicide claims to be compassionate but, in reality, it turns vulnerable people into problems that may be ‘fixed’ with a lethal injection.

“The display of shoes outside Parliament will show the devastating reality that we’ll not have the opportunity to get back our family and friends who take the choice of assisted suicide.” 

She added, “This deadly bill is under no circumstances 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’m a carer for my dad and deeply desire the very best for him. While caring takes a considerable amount of time, money and resources, I recognise that caring for my dad is a present and each moment is precious,” she said.

“I cannot mentally even bring myself to think that it will be higher if he wasn’t here.

“Love takes care of people. It sacrifices time and is something all of us may carry at one point or one other. The solution is just not to supply suicide, but to supply higher healthcare, higher palliative solutions and to have higher support for carers.”

The first debate on the second reading stage within the House of Lords was held every 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’s for doctors to accurately estimate the length of time an individual 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 in regards to the misnomer of “assisted dying”. 

Former Prime Minister, Theresa May, said: “This is just not an assisted dying bill but an assisted suicide bill. As a society, we imagine that suicide is improper.

“Suicide is improper, but this bill effectively says suicide is okay. What message does that give to our society? Suicide is just not okay. Suicide is improper. This bill is improper and […] it mustn’t pass.”

She added that, with no coroner’s report, “there may be a danger that this could possibly 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 even have a friend who calls it the ‘Licence to Kill Bill’,” she said. 

Baroness Goudie raised similar concerns about inaccurate language. 

“Why is that this called by its supporters an assisted dying bill? It is nothing of the type,” she said. 

“Assistance sounds good, and dying is a natural process which involves us all. Pain relief and emotional support are vital and uncontroversial.

“However, this Bill is just not about that; it’s about assisted suicide, and that’s altogether a special matter.” 

The chamber heard from the Bishop of London, Dame Sarah Mullally, who can be the previous government Chief Nursing Officer.

She told peers that the bill was “deeply flawed” and that a change within the law would “change society”. 

“Any law that introduces alternative for a couple of is just not limited in its effect to only those few. If passed, the bill will signal that we’re a society that believes that some lives will not be value living,” she said. 

She raised concerns that some people would feel pressured to finish their lives or “be offered free assisted death before they’re offered the care and equipment that they might live”.

She said she was “deeply concerned that so many in Parliament will not be heeding the voices of skilled and representative bodies which might be raising the alarm”. 

“Above all, the bill fails in its central claim that it delivers alternative,” she continued.

“A meaningful alternative would see the measures within the bill set alongside equally available, fully funded palliative and social care services. Without that being offered, this alternative is an illusion,” she said. 

Speaking after the talk, Lord Jackson of Peterborough said that the extent of opposition at second reading was “a transparent 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 should never turn out to be law.

“Vulnerable people in our society need our unwavering protection and the very best quality care, not a pathway to assisted suicide.

“Evidence from abroad shows that, if this laws becomes law, large numbers of vulnerable people nearing the tip of life can be pressured or coerced into ending their lives.”