Share this post:
Division is the watchword as the House of Lords debates the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – also known as the bitterly controversial “Assisted Dying Bill”.
The Bill was passed by MPs in the House of Commons in June, by a narrow majority of 23. It proposes to allow some terminally ill adults in England and Wales to choose assisted dying – but the circumstances in which that is likely to be allowed are problematic.
Labour peer Lord Falconer, who is sponsoring the Bill in the Lords, urged colleagues to respect the principle that laws supported by the Commons should not be blocked.
He described the current legal situation as “confused”, causing “terrible suffering”, and said the Bill would receive “more than enough time” for scrutiny before the parliamentary session ends next spring.
Supporters in the Lords, including Baroness Margaret Hodge, argued the Bill protects individual freedom to control one’s death, citing personal experiences of witnessing suffering at the end of life.
Opponents, including former prime minister Theresa May and Paralympian Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, warned of risks to vulnerable groups.
They said safeguards were insufficient, raising fears of pressure on disabled or chronically ill people to end their lives, and highlighting concerns that some clauses “blur the line” between assisted dying and euthanasia.
A Guardian opinion piece by Lucy Webster similarly warns that the Bill, as passed by MPs, fails to adequately protect disabled people.
She has called on the Lords to extend scrutiny, include more expert and affected voices, and restore safeguards rejected in the Commons.
Vox Political’s position
Vox Political supports the principle of assisted dying – but only when robust safeguards are in place to ensure it is freely chosen, medically justified, and legally protected from abuse.
The Bill in its current form removes essential protections, including judicial oversight, and creates the potential for coercion or undue influence on vulnerable patients.
Despite claims of thorough debate in the Commons, I believe Parliament has rushed this legislation, leaving many life-and-death questions insufficiently examined.
But will peers strengthen the Bill’s protections – or push it forward in its current flawed form?
Share this post:
Will the Lords protect us from the Assisted Dying Bill?
Share this post:
Division is the watchword as the House of Lords debates the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – also known as the bitterly controversial “Assisted Dying Bill”.
The Bill was passed by MPs in the House of Commons in June, by a narrow majority of 23. It proposes to allow some terminally ill adults in England and Wales to choose assisted dying – but the circumstances in which that is likely to be allowed are problematic.
Labour peer Lord Falconer, who is sponsoring the Bill in the Lords, urged colleagues to respect the principle that laws supported by the Commons should not be blocked.
He described the current legal situation as “confused”, causing “terrible suffering”, and said the Bill would receive “more than enough time” for scrutiny before the parliamentary session ends next spring.
Supporters in the Lords, including Baroness Margaret Hodge, argued the Bill protects individual freedom to control one’s death, citing personal experiences of witnessing suffering at the end of life.
Opponents, including former prime minister Theresa May and Paralympian Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, warned of risks to vulnerable groups.
They said safeguards were insufficient, raising fears of pressure on disabled or chronically ill people to end their lives, and highlighting concerns that some clauses “blur the line” between assisted dying and euthanasia.
A Guardian opinion piece by Lucy Webster similarly warns that the Bill, as passed by MPs, fails to adequately protect disabled people.
She has called on the Lords to extend scrutiny, include more expert and affected voices, and restore safeguards rejected in the Commons.
Vox Political’s position
Vox Political supports the principle of assisted dying – but only when robust safeguards are in place to ensure it is freely chosen, medically justified, and legally protected from abuse.
The Bill in its current form removes essential protections, including judicial oversight, and creates the potential for coercion or undue influence on vulnerable patients.
Despite claims of thorough debate in the Commons, I believe Parliament has rushed this legislation, leaving many life-and-death questions insufficiently examined.
But will peers strengthen the Bill’s protections – or push it forward in its current flawed form?
Share this post:
you might also like
Let’s start the New Year with some hopeful news
Three letters: F-O-X
How much can YOU pay? A&E charges would speed NHS privatisation