Assisted Suicide Bill to go to House of Lords Selected Committee

Members of the House Lords concluded the debate at Second Reading of Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adult (End of Life) Bill today.

The debate, which, unusually, took place over two days, due to the number of Peers who wanted to speak, passed its Second Reading without a formal vote, which was expected: by convention, the House of Lords does not always vote at this stage.

It is anticipated that if there is to be an attempt in the Lords to block the Bill in its entirety, it will be at Third Reading.

However, in what is a relatively unusual move, the Bill will next go to a Select Committee, before proceeding to Committee Stage.

This gives Peers the opportunity to collect oral evidence about the impact of the Bill, before scrutinising the Bill line-by-line. It will report back by 7 November, at which point, Committee Stage will begin. There will be four days of Committee Stage before Christmas, when Peers will debate possible amendments to the Bill.

Today, a further 71 Peers spoke in the debate: of these, 42 were opposed to the Bill, 25 were in favour, and 4 were uncertain. In total, across the two days of debate, 96 spoke against the Bill, compared to just 53 in favour, with 12 uncertain.

Below are some of the most notable contributions from people opposing the Bill, who represent a range of different political traditions.

Lord Moore of Etchingham

“The Bill does not support the freedom to kill yourself: that, we already possess. It confers a right to kill yourself with the active assistance of the state and doctors, and at public expense. It also reverses the operation of that power of human persuasion which works such wonders on Beachy Head. Under this legislation, the professionals will, by definition, be people wishing to fulfil a person’s wish to die. No one will be present to advocate the choice of life.

I do not believe that our country, particularly our National Health Service, can successfully contain such a contradiction in public policy and morality. If the Bill is enacted, the same hospital whose professionals help rescue potential suicides will contain other professionals who give gravely sick people the substances to kill themselves.”

Baroness Fox of Buckley

“Any of us who have known family or friends who have committed suicide know that it is gut-wrenchingly tragic; it brings an especially visceral, raw grief. This is compounded by guilt as loved ones endlessly soul-search, totally unfairly blaming themselves: “What more could we have done?” This is why, if we see someone about to jump from a bridge, even if they give us 100 objective reasons why their life is not worth living or even if they have only a few months to live, we do not just shrug and walk on—we cling on to them and plead, “Don’t do it. Don’t jump”. All this reflects our deep humanistic intuition that, when a person acts to end their life, it should be resisted with all the energy society can muster. What happens culturally, though, when the state shouts, “Jump”, or agrees with those who say that ending their life is a compassionate choice?”

Lord Frost

"The Bill is proposing to dismantle part of that inherited ethical system by allowing the state to engage in killing innocent people at their request. Once we have dismantled one part of that system, because we think we know best, what then is the status of the rest of that moral and ethical system? Once you have introduced utilitarianism into our society’s decisions, where do you stop? The ultimate destination of this journey is a utilitarian society with a utilitarian Government, one where there are no free-standing, inherited moral principles of any kind, only the principles that we think we are clever enough to create.

The problem is that in such a society none of us is really safe. The only protection for any of us then are the collective wishes of society, whatever they are at any given moment. In such a society, the rights of those who are inconvenient—the disabled, the ill, the elderly or maybe those who are just unpopular—have no robust defence and are potentially vulnerable. Any of us might one day fall into any of those categories. At that point, your only protection against the general will of society comes from an appeal to the same ethical system that you have just decided is merely contingent, capable of being disposed of if it is inconvenient. Noble Lords may think, as I do, that human dignity and autonomy and freedom are important, but what if the general will of society does not? What ground do you have to stand on there? That is why it is so dangerous to continue dismantling this ethical code, as the Bill does."

Baroness Stroud

"Before the summer, the Bill passed the Commons with a small and decreasing majority. Over the summer, we were given a moment to pause, stop and examine ourselves as a nation. Is this the sort of nation we want to be, where protection is removed for the vulnerable, the poorest, the elderly and those with disabilities; where budgets for health provision can be cut because the vulnerable are being encouraged to choose death? I can just hear the Department of Health working through the budgetary reductions with the OBR, based on the percentage increase of those expected to choose assisted dying. I believe that this country can be better than this, that we should be having a different conversation and that the palliative care we provide for those who are terminally ill could be developed so that we become a world leader. Now that would be an ambitious vision that would be worth voting for."

Lord Shinkwin

"My noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead told us how her friend referred to the Bill as a “licence to kill Bill”. She is right: it gives the state a licence to kill the wrong type of people. I am the wrong type. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, pointed out in his speech, there are savings to be made should assisted dying be introduced. This Bill effectively puts a price on my head. Indeed, should it become law and precedents set elsewhere apply in the UK over time, I face the realistic possibility, as a severely disabled person, of being killed as a result of legislation passed by this House."

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

"Throughout, we have heard horror stories of bad care and inadequate or appalling management, especially out of hours. The Bill does not require any attempt to relieve pain or suffering, even if they are present. It puts power in the hands of the two assessing doctors, who may know nothing about the condition of the person, who cannot detect undue influence or coercion and whose motivation may be opaque. Prognosis is a guess and diagnostic errors are common. These doctors do not need to be certain; only on the balance of probability do they need to believe that the criteria are met. With no oversight of their assessment, how can a panel approve the death with any certainty when there is no ability to appeal against a panel approval and no coroner oversight? How many wrongful deaths a year is acceptable? No system can be 100% safe."

Lord Bailey of Paddington

"This Bill cannot and should not pass into law. It is built on a flawed assumption and will expose the most vulnerable in our society to irreparable harm. We are told that it is about choice. But it could lead the poor, the sick, the isolated, the terrified, the people who have grown up relying on the system—not people such as us in this Chamber, who have benefited from it, but the people who rely on it, trust it and believe in it—to see this as a burden, a pressure, and even a duty to take their own life.

We cannot expose the poorest people in this country, the people most dependent on we in this Chamber to do the right thing for them, to this poorly thought-out legislation. It will devastate communities—communities that many of us have never been to and do not understand. We will be enacting something that will become a myth in those communities. We will be pre-legislating for people’s early deaths because their lives have been hard."

Former Prime Minister Theresa May:

“I have a friend who calls it the license to kill Bill. It is not an assisted dying Bill. It is an assisted suicide Bill. As a society we believe suicide is wrong. The government has a national suicide prevention strategy. We bemoan the number of young people who are lured into committing suicide by social media and what they read on the internet. This week is world suicide awareness week. Suicide is wrong. But this Bill effectively says that suicide is okay. What message does that send to our society? Suicide is not okay. Suicide is wrong. This Bill is wrong and in my opinion it should not pass."

Baroness Grey-Thompson:

“Good laws are not made from hard cases, soundbites don’t make watertight bills. We’ve heard this Bill is the safest in the world. However during committee stage in the other place, Judges were replaced by a panel in a contradictory term called judge-plus."

Bishop of London, Dame Sarah Mullally:

“I am a former government chief nursing officer and I chaired the UK bereavement commission. But as a nurse, a priest, a daughter and a granddaughter, I have had the privilege of being with many people when they die. Most people die well. I have known people to experience the most valuable days of their life as it comes to an end. To change the law is to change society. Any law that introduces choice to a few is not limited in effect to that few. I am concerned for those who will face internal and subtle pressure to end their lives in the absence of adequate palliative and social care or to avoid being a burden to their families.”

Lord Herbert:

“If you believe that personal autonomy, the right to choose death is the overarching principle, why should the law logically stop at the terminally ill? What about the terminally miserable? Why shouldn’t it be anyone’s right to die? We already know how the elderly are too often regarded in our society, as a burden or a nuisance.”

Lord Blencathra:

“I am not opposed to assisted dying in principle but I am opposed to this appallingly drafted Bill which is a travesty of a private members bill. It is larger and more controversial than many government bills and should have proper scrutiny.”

Baroness Keeley:

“It is deeply troubling that this Bill and the debates surrounding it certainly before today have given so little consideration to palliative care. I oppose assisted suicide in principle and I oppose this bill. It is poorly constructed and it was rushed through the Commons without inadequate scrutiny with many amendments not debated. Crucially it does not even require that those requesting assisted suicide are offered palliative care assessment first. Yet specialists tell us that palliative care can help people who wish to die rediscover reasons to live. Sadly too many terminally ill people feel abandoned by the NHS due to the lack of palliative care.”

Baroness Goudie:

“Why is this called by its supporters an assisted dying bill? It is nothing of the sort. Assistance sounds good. Dying is a natural process which comes to us all. Pain relief and emotional support are vital and uncontroversial. This Bill is not about that, it is about assisted suicide. I understand why some see this as a matter of choice. But we cannot ignore the context in which that decision is made. When someone is terminally ill, frightened, exhausted and overwhelmed they are at their most vulnerable. And it precisely at that moment that this Bill proposes to offer them a legal means to end their life and that is aided by others, approved by our institutions and normalised by law. The risk of coercion remains real. I don't believe we can eliminate that risk. Once we create a legal route to assisted suicide how can we ever be sure a patient's choice is not shaped even subtly by pressure, manipulation, guilt or simply the sense of being a burden."

Lord Carlile:

“I am opposed to this Bill in principle. But above all I’m opposed to this Bill because in my view it is not an adequate Bill to deal with all the issue raised and does not provide anything like sufficient protection for those vulnerable people who might be persuaded against their real will to accept assisted suicide. Indeed despite the large resources supporting the purposes of this Bill and the involvement of many experts, this Bill earns a D minus for its draftmanship, even after all those committee meetings in the other place. The Bill needs to be dismantled if it is to be an effective and proper Bill to give it legislative legitimacy. The Delegated Powers committer produced a report. By the calm standards of that committee their criticism is excoriating. They say the Bill is simply not fit for purpose. It is incompetently drafted.”