Peers urged to reject ‘irredeemably flawed’ assisted suicide bill

The House of Lords has begun debating Kim Leadbeater’s bill to legalise assisted suicide after it passed the House of Commons in the summertime. 

Over 200 peers are expected to talk on the proposed laws over the course of the two-day debate, which began on Friday and can resume next week. 

Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill proposes legalising assisted suicide for patients in England and Wales with a terminal illness and 6 months or less to live.

The bill passed its Third Reading within the Commons by only a narrow margin, and with considerably less support than at its Second Reading. 

Given the narrowing of support for the reason that bill was first introduced, opponents have continued to hope that the House of Lords will vote it down – something that continues to be a possibility because it is a non-public member’s bill and was not promised within the Labour government’s election manifesto. 

Speaking on the eve of the controversy, Christian social policy charity CARE urged peers to reject the “irredeemably flawed” bill.

CARE chief executive, Ross Hendry, said: “We recognise the difficulties peers are facing with this Bill and questions around whether the House of Lords can or should block it.

“Ultimately, our view is that sooner or later, Peers should vote this laws down. It is each flawed and dangerous.

“Legalising this practice would send the harmful message that lives marked by illness and disability are usually not value living.

“It could also open the door to abuses against vulnerable and marginalised members of society: lonely elderly people, disabled people, victims of domestic abuse and others.”

He noted the concerns highlighted by a big selection of experts, including the Delegated Powers Committee which said this week that the bill “gives sweeping, unspecified and unjustified powers to the federal government”.

A separate report published by the House of Lords Constitution Committee on Thursday said that the “degree of deliberation, assessment and scrutiny” was “significantly lower than we might expect to see for an equivalent government bill”.

“This is particularly concerning given the material of the bill,” it said. 

Mr Hendry added, “We call on peers to reject this irredeemably flawed bill and as a substitute, put pressure on the Government to go much further on investing in palliative care.”

The Bishops of London, Newcastle and Southwark, and the Archbishop of York were expected to talk in the course of the debate.

The Bishop of London, Sarah Mullally, said she would use the controversy to precise her “deep concerns” and “grave fears” concerning the bill. 

The bishop, who can also be the previous Chief Nursing Officer for England, has consistently spoken out against the bill. 

Speaking to the PA news agency ahead of Friday’s debate, she outlined her “grave fears regarding its potential to disproportionately impact essentially the most vulnerable in our society”, and said that the “most important issue that needs addressing” was the standard and availability of palliative care within the UK.