Lord Falconer’s ‘Assisted
Dying Bill’ , which reaches its Committee Stage in the House of Lords on Friday 7 November, seeks to legalise assisted suicide (but not euthanasia) for
mentally competent adults (>18) with less than six months to live subject to
‘safeguards’ under a two doctors’ signature model similar to the Abortion Act
1967.
The Bill had an unopposed
second reading in the House of Lords on 18 July. This is not unusual for
the House of Lords and simply means that the Lords were opting to debate it
line by line rather than just rejecting it on principle.
A Supreme
Court ruling earlier in the year put pressure on the Lords to give the bill
a proper hearing and if they didn’t, doubtless Falconer would keep bringing it
back, using up more precious parliamentary time and complaining that ‘we have
not yet had the debate’.
For opponents to the bill – and there are many – the
tactical options were either to kill the bill dead – as they did with a similar
bill from Lord Joffe in 2006 – or to strangle it slowly in committee by
amending it out of recognition before putting in the boot one last time.
They have opted for the latter, a kinder and more
compassionate course of action for a piece of draft legislation which is already
terminally ill. And a better plan for kicking it beyond the long
grass to a place where no one dare retrieve it.
When the bill was debated in July thousands of people wrote
to the Lords to complain about its loopholes and inadequacies and disabled people staged a
mass protest outside Westminster Palace.
The depth of feeling against the bill across the political
spectrum was underlined when the Guardian
newspaper – that bastion of right wing conservative values - changed its
editorial policy to oppose it because of real concerns about public safety.
Already a massive fight is brewing for this Friday with
peers tabling a
sack load of amendments aimed at exposing the bills weaknesses and
inconsistencies. More are expected later this week and the government is
already talking about extending the committee stage so that they can all be
heard.
But in reality this is something of a phoney war.
It is conceivable that the bill may yet come to a final vote
in the House of Lords, but both sides are agreed that the chances of it
clearing the Commons in the run up to the election are virtually zilch.
The most Falconer’s supporters can hope for is some sort of
a ‘moral’ - albeit Pyrrhic - victory by perhaps winning a vote over an
amendment or two in a poorly attended committee debate.
The real battle will happen after next May’s general
election and the chances of the bill progressing then will depend very much on
who is in power. It’s very clear that the current House of Commons would not
pass it.
Having said all that it is crucial that those opposed to the
bill make their voices heard. Peers have been buried in letters from the
pro-euthanasia lobby in the run up to committee as the former Voluntary
Euthanasia Society – aka Dignity in Dying – launch their attack.
Now is the time for those opposed to the bill to strike back
and urge peers to put down this deficient draft legislation.
We don’t need this bill.
Any change in the law to allow assisted suicide will place
pressure on vulnerable people to end their lives for fear of being a financial,
emotional or care burden upon others. This will especially affect people who
are disabled, elderly, sick or depressed. The right to die can so easily become
the duty to die.
The law we have at present does not need changing. The stiff
penalties it holds in reserve provide an effective bulwark against exploitation
and abuse, but in so doing it still allows judges to act with mercy in hard
cases. It also protects vulnerable relatives from being subtly coerced into
assisting a suicide against their better judgement.
The pressure people will feel to end their lives if assisted
suicide is legalised will be greatly accentuated at this time of economic
recession with families and health budgets under pressure. Elder abuse and
neglect by families, carers and institutions are real and dangerous and this is
why strong laws are necessary. Where there is a will, there is an anxious
relative.
Furthermore experience in other jurisdictions, such as
Belgium, the Netherlands and the US American states of Oregon
and Washington, shows that any change in the law will lead to ‘incremental
extension’ and ‘mission creep’ as some doctors will actively extend the
categories of those to be included (from mentally competent to incompetent,
from terminal to chronic illness, from adults to children, from assisted
suicide to euthanasia). This process will be almost impossible to police.
It’s time to put Falconer out of his misery. He has suffered
enough. Let’s not draw things out too long.
Come and stand with disabled people this Friday at 9am outside parliament.
And write some letters to peers. You’ll find all the briefing
information you need on the Care
Not Killing website along with the specifics of the Bill’s specific defects and
the broader arguments
against a change in the law.
Don’t delay.
How can anyone write such rot? The care my father received after his stroke was aimed solely at prolonging a life with no quality at all. We fought off a stomach peg with the greatest difficulty. We were told palliative care was not available to stroke patients. He died an undignified painful death. My mother has nightmares 5 years on. That the same will happen to her. The slippery slope that I see is the one of medical advances prolonging life when there is no quality. It's simply cruel. My father should have had the right to choose.
ReplyDeleteI too would like the right to choose not to suffer.Palliative care works for some but for may it is not enough. Look at the data from Oregon and support this bill
ReplyDeletehttp://bit.ly/setting-record-straight