Margaret Eaton, Baroness Eaton, is a Member of the House of Lords.
The House of Lords did its job. It scrutinised a profoundly flawed Bill and prevented bad law from being rushed onto the statute book.
Our work repeatedly exposed deficiencies in the Bill’s safeguards, including for people with mental disorders or learning disabilities, where protections were unclear or depended too heavily on subsequent regulations. Concerns about eligibility criteria, the declaration process, doctor assessments, and provisions regarding substances and liability loopholes in the Bill raised serious questions about its “safety”. I am not convinced that we were anywhere close to finalising a satisfactory version of the Bill.
Before the Bill reached the Lords, many MPs said they looked forward to scrutiny from Peers – indeed, for some, their support for the Bill was conditional upon this. Shortly after Committee Stage commenced in the Lords, Kim Leadbeater MP also expressed her appreciation and “welcome” for the scrutiny her bill would receive. She later described important amendments as “cruel” and unnecessary.
The role of the Lords is not to obligingly nod legislation through, contrary to campaigners’ expectations, but to revise and apply independent expertise. If that took more time than some desired, it is reasonable to consider whether the issue lay in the drafting of the Bill rather than in the conduct of those applying scrutiny. Unquestionably, the Bill introduced to the Lords was the one Ms Leadbeater wanted, given her control over its journey through the Commons. Where, then, does the buck stop?
Lord Falconer accused opponents of using procedural tactics to delay the Bill, but the Government twice added more time, allocating 16sitting Fridays altogether. Opposition was broad (not the “handful” of peers claimed by some), with at least 143 colleagues – including leading medical and palliative care experts, a former Chief Executive of NHS England, peers with disabilities, and senior legal figures – highlighting the scale of concern.
I am dismayed that this same Bill, with its inherent flaws, and in the face of significant concern from experts and those most impacted by a change in the law, has been dragged back onto the parliamentary agenda by Lauren Edwards MP. It is a divisive, retrograde step, which distracts from the key work of Government at a time of considerable upheaval in our nation.
Legalised assisted suicide represents a seismic shift. It is neither a trifling nor inevitable change, nor is it progressive. The Bill would allow doctors, in certain cases, to prescribe and supply lethal drugs to adults expected to die within six months, assisting them to end their own lives. There would no longer be a blanket ban on intentionally facilitating a patient’s death. Instead, some healthcare professionals would become active participants, fundamentally altering the role of the doctor. It effectively empowers the State to end life.
Measures in the Bill to protect against coercion do not come close to addressing the pressures families may exert, or the ‘self-coercion’ a person may feel. Regrettably, the responses from the Bill sponsor in the Lords when these concerns were raised were invariably variations on a theme of “I do not agree”, despite this being an area of concern for Peers taking different views on assisted suicide in principle.
Without the scrutinising work of the Lords, seemingly robust legislation – even that which we were assured was the strongest of its kind in the world – comes unravelled. In some cases, the cost is administrative; in this Bill, the cost would be human lives. Our work exposed how far short this Bill fell of the standard we should all wish for in legislation. MPs should give this reanimated Bill short shrift.
Margaret Eaton, Baroness Eaton, is a Member of the House of Lords.
The House of Lords did its job. It scrutinised a profoundly flawed Bill and prevented bad law from being rushed onto the statute book.
Our work repeatedly exposed deficiencies in the Bill’s safeguards, including for people with mental disorders or learning disabilities, where protections were unclear or depended too heavily on subsequent regulations. Concerns about eligibility criteria, the declaration process, doctor assessments, and provisions regarding substances and liability loopholes in the Bill raised serious questions about its “safety”. I am not convinced that we were anywhere close to finalising a satisfactory version of the Bill.
Before the Bill reached the Lords, many MPs said they looked forward to scrutiny from Peers – indeed, for some, their support for the Bill was conditional upon this. Shortly after Committee Stage commenced in the Lords, Kim Leadbeater MP also expressed her appreciation and “welcome” for the scrutiny her bill would receive. She later described important amendments as “cruel” and unnecessary.
The role of the Lords is not to obligingly nod legislation through, contrary to campaigners’ expectations, but to revise and apply independent expertise. If that took more time than some desired, it is reasonable to consider whether the issue lay in the drafting of the Bill rather than in the conduct of those applying scrutiny. Unquestionably, the Bill introduced to the Lords was the one Ms Leadbeater wanted, given her control over its journey through the Commons. Where, then, does the buck stop?
Lord Falconer accused opponents of using procedural tactics to delay the Bill, but the Government twice added more time, allocating 16sitting Fridays altogether. Opposition was broad (not the “handful” of peers claimed by some), with at least 143 colleagues – including leading medical and palliative care experts, a former Chief Executive of NHS England, peers with disabilities, and senior legal figures – highlighting the scale of concern.
I am dismayed that this same Bill, with its inherent flaws, and in the face of significant concern from experts and those most impacted by a change in the law, has been dragged back onto the parliamentary agenda by Lauren Edwards MP. It is a divisive, retrograde step, which distracts from the key work of Government at a time of considerable upheaval in our nation.
Legalised assisted suicide represents a seismic shift. It is neither a trifling nor inevitable change, nor is it progressive. The Bill would allow doctors, in certain cases, to prescribe and supply lethal drugs to adults expected to die within six months, assisting them to end their own lives. There would no longer be a blanket ban on intentionally facilitating a patient’s death. Instead, some healthcare professionals would become active participants, fundamentally altering the role of the doctor. It effectively empowers the State to end life.
Measures in the Bill to protect against coercion do not come close to addressing the pressures families may exert, or the ‘self-coercion’ a person may feel. Regrettably, the responses from the Bill sponsor in the Lords when these concerns were raised were invariably variations on a theme of “I do not agree”, despite this being an area of concern for Peers taking different views on assisted suicide in principle.
Without the scrutinising work of the Lords, seemingly robust legislation – even that which we were assured was the strongest of its kind in the world – comes unravelled. In some cases, the cost is administrative; in this Bill, the cost would be human lives. Our work exposed how far short this Bill fell of the standard we should all wish for in legislation. MPs should give this reanimated Bill short shrift.