The Lords must now revise this dreadful assisted dying Bill
Britain is a less civilised country today. Seldom has the House of Commons enacted legislation with such potentially calamitous consequences as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which has passed its third reading by a majority of 314 to 291. The narrow margin of victory for the assisted dying Bill indicates that opinion had turned against the legalisation of euthanasia during the process of scrutiny, but not in sufficient numbers to defeat it. The only hope of mitigating its worst aspects now lies with the House of Lords.
The Lords is a revising chamber and it should now do the job that the Commons failed to do: proper scrutiny. In this case, the revision required to make this legislation workable and safe will have to be radical. This Private Member's Bill was not in the Labour manifesto and so the Upper House is much less limited by convention in the scope of possible amendments. Peers are not generally eager to correct the follies of MPs, but this time their Lordships' duty is to make root and branch changes to the Bill, even if this risks confrontation with the Commons.
In particular, the bishops of the Church of England have a responsibility to speak out much more clearly on a matter of such moral gravity. We know that in countries where euthanasia has been legalised, a large and growing proportion of all deaths are now assisted by doctors. In Canada, for example, some studies suggest up to 10 per cent of all lives will end in this way. Surely the Lords Spiritual should be leading the national conversation about what is likely to become reality here, too, in the very near future.
Many people will rightly feel a sense of dread at the prospect of death on the NHS. When the new law takes effect in 2029, our health service will be obliged to offer assisted suicide as though it were just another form of care. Palliative care (already the Cinderella of the NHS) will now compete for resources with the new 'service'. As we report, assisted death is likely to overwhelm the NHS and finally break its budgets.
Doctors will have to offer lethal drugs to any and all patients who are deemed to be terminally ill, as long as they have mental capacity. Those who meet the criteria could include patients with all kinds of disabilities, people with Down's Syndrome and those with eating disorders. The panels that will decide whether to authorise assisted dying do not need to have personal knowledge of the patient, nor to inform families or friends. They need only decide on the balance of probabilities that the patient is not being coerced.
How did Britain find itself saddled with such a 'bad Bill', as the Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called it, on a matter of such cardinal importance? The Prime Minister must carry much of the blame. Unwilling to shoulder responsibility, he chose to pass the buck to Kim Leadbeater, a backbench MP with more zeal than sagacity. A Government Bill would have allowed much more time to examine the practical costs and benefits of shoehorning the provision of medicalised death into a service designed to preserve life.
One of Sir Keir Starmer's predecessors, Gordon Brown, rightly observed that in the name of autonomy the Bill sets up a false choice. Patients who request assisted dying will in future have a legal right to receive it, 'without guaranteeing anything approaching an equivalent right to high-quality palliative care for those close to death', he said. The refusal of the Commons to acknowledge this glaring injustice now places the onus on the Lords to enable physicians to offer terminal patients a genuine choice.
Whatever one's views about the principle of assisted dying, this Bill is a case of legislating in haste and repenting at leisure. Posterity will have to live with its lasting impact on the relationship between the public and the medical profession. But it is not too late for peers to remedy some of the Bill's flaws.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
The assisted dying debate has been politics – but not as we know it
The House of Commons is a place defined by confrontation where political battles play out and engage more actively with their constituents. But the atmosphere could not have been more different on Friday, as those on both sides of the assisted dying debate listened respectfully, almost solemnly, to one another in the final hours before the crucial vote. As MPs headed for the division lobbies, the bill's supporters seemed confident but nervous. When the voting was completed and the result imminent, a long and profound silence fell over the House. From the press gallery, it seemed that the entire Commons was holding its breath together, collectively aware of the historic moment we were all about to witness, whatever the outcome. The woman at the centre of this seismic moment, the bill's sponsor Kim Leadbeater, braced herself as the result came in. Many months of pressure and responsibility appeared to be lifted from her shoulders as the win was announced and colleagues gathered to commend her efforts. Throughout the process this been politics but not as we know it, with party divisions put aside and MPs asked to search their own consciences and come to their own conclusions. It has created a more collaborative atmosphere in parliament and encouraged MPs to engage more actively with their constituents. 3:06 In the end there was still anger, frustration and disappointment among those who were against the law change, either on principle or because they believed the legislation was flawed. And of course, politics will go back to being combative and voices in the Commons will be raised once again. But for a brief period, historic change was calmly ushered in. The challenge for the proponents now is to take the legislation through the next phases and deliver it with the same smoothness and determination.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Streeting should stand firm in face of doctors' risible demands
No country can claim to be in the forefront of democracy and development unless it can ensure the health of its citizens. Whatever its woes — and they are many — the National Health Service does keep most Britons in better health than many people on other continents. Partly that is thanks to pioneering excellence in medical research. And partly it is the result of a long tradition of top surgeons and physicians whose skills underpin specialist units attracting doctors from overseas. The consultants know it. They are proud of it. And, to their discredit, they are ready nowadays to exploit it. NHS consultants earn, on average, £145,000 a year. It may not be the salary of an investment banker. But it is considerably more than most people are paid. And there is ample opportunity to supplement this salary with private practice and filling in as a locum at the going rate of £200 an hour. Consultants have been awarded a pay increase of 4 per cent for the coming year, a figure above inflation. The British Medical Association, the doctors' union, has described this as an 'insult'. It insists that a pay rise of 35 per cent over the next three years is needed to restore consultant pay to 2008 levels in real terms. Otherwise, the BMA says, it will support a strike if an 'indicative ballot' shows that this is what senior doctors want. The consultants' claim is risible. It is not only unaffordable in today's straitened times and given the parlous state of NHS finances; it is based on the threat of holding the health, and sometimes the lives, of thousands of patients to ransom. It is a maximalist demand, backed by possible strike action, similar to the bullying approach of the rail unions. Consultants ought to be able to see that their claim has far less validity or public support than the claims by nurses and resident — once known as junior — doctors. They, too, insist that their pay needs to catch up with what they once enjoyed. They, too, risk losing public sympathy, following earlier strike action. But millions of Britons have seen their take-home pay fall in recent years. Comparisons do not help consultants. Famously, Aneurin Bevan, the architect of the NHS, bought off consultants opposed to his proposals for a state scheme, saying that he had 'stuffed their mouths with gold'. And since 1948 they have enjoyed this well-funded quasi-independence from state control, with generous state pensions. They have also enjoyed the fruits of expensive training, provided largely by the state in Britain's medical schools. Doctors, like everyone nowadays, are obliged to pay back their tuition fees — but many will not do so for years. An alarming number will never do so; on qualification they look for more lucrative contracts abroad, often in Australia. As a result Britain has partly depended on an inflow of doctors trained overseas, largely in India, a situation benefiting neither country. In the long term, the tight restriction on the numbers enrolling in medical schools should be eased; a developed country should never risk a doctor shortage. Also in the long term, doctors, especially consultants, should be compelled, by legislation if necessary, to devote a defined period of their careers to the NHS and serve in areas of greatest need. Other countries make provision for nationwide coverage. The immediate challenge, however, is pay. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, is holding talks with the BMA. He must stand firm in resisting its absurd new demands.
Sky News
2 hours ago
- Sky News
Assisted dying bill: How both sides of debate reacted to historic vote
People on both sides of the assisted dying debate have told Sky News how they feel about the outcome of today's vote – and while some are popping open champagne, others are "incredibly disappointed". More than 300 MPs this afternoon backed a bill that gives people in England and Wales who have less than six months to live the right to apply for an assisted death. Each request will be evaluated by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Today's historic vote means the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will now go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny before becoming law. Following the landmark vote, individuals for and against it have shared their feelings on the result. Frank Tate-Sutton - For 6:04 Frank Tate-Sutton is terminally ill and told Sky News she's relieved the bill has passed, even though the law won't be changed in time for her. "These are happy tears," she said. "I am emotional. It's a very difficult subject for everybody." Ms Tate-Sutton said her quality of life is "very important - and I'm losing it". "I don't want to die without dignity, without it being my choice, without my family knowing that this is what I want," she continued. "As much as they [my family] want me alive, do they want to see me lying in my living room in a hospital bed, taking all these drugs, not being able to talk, not being able to control my bodily functions? "That is not a life, for me - living on all the medications and not being able to exist without that… the side effects and everything." Mike Smith - Against 5:20 Mike Smith is a spokesperson for the disability rights group Not Dead Yet - and he has been left "incredibly disappointed" by the outcome of the vote. "This particular bill had so many failings in the way safeguards are constructed and the significant scope for coercion, whether it's overt or subliminal," he said. Mr Smith says he fears some people will "end up ending their lives earlier than they should do or want to". "There are so many disabled people around the country that have told us they're absolutely scared." "I think it's this inherent fear people have about being disabled that drives this very emotional response on this really complex topic," he explained. "What we know is, with good palliative care, social care, access to housing and an income, many disabled people ... can lead amazing lives." 6:48 Rebecca Wilcox and her TV presenter mother Dame Esther Rantzen, who has terminal cancer, have long been campaigning for a change to the UK's law on assisted dying. Speaking from Parliament Square as fellow supporters of the bill popped champagne behind her, Ms Wilcox described today's vote as "an extraordinary moment". "It means so much to me," she said. "I spoke to mum and her one word to describe it was 'wow'. "She didn't think she was going to live to see the debate, let alone a conclusion that went our way." In response to concerns about safeguarding, she said it will "bring in layer upon layer of safeguards". "We're going to have scrutiny upon scrutiny for every case and at the moment, there is no scrutiny," she said. "Coercion could be happening as we speak. "There is now protection for vulnerable people, by having this bill passed." Dr Gordon Macdonald - Against Dr Macdonald said the bill passing with a majority of 23 - less than half what its second reading achieved - is proof that "the more people have thought about this issue, the more they've had doubts". The doctor, who is the CEO of anti-euthanasia organisation Care not Killing, said: "We will see what happens when it gets to the [House of] Lords, the Lords will hopefully give it more rigorous scrutiny than happened in the Commons". His biggest concern is "for people who are vulnerable, who will feel pressure to end their lives". "That might come from external forces, but it's more likely to just be internalised pressure," Dr Macdonald said. "They'll feel they're a burden on their family and friends, conscious of the cost of care, and think they should do the decent thing, as they would see it in that thinking." It's "of course a terrible message for society to send out to people," he said.
