“`html
Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP sponsoring the assisted dying Bill, has voiced her unease with a former prime minister’s characterization of it as the “assisted suicide bill.”
Theresa May is among the members of the House of Lords strongly opposing the legislation, arguing that there are insufficient safeguards to protect individuals from being pressured into ending their lives.
The former Conservative PM’s remarks came as the House of Lords commenced its examination of the Terminally Ill Adults Bill, which passed in the House of Commons with a 23-vote majority in June.
Speaking outside the chamber, Leadbeater asserted that terminally ill individuals who support the Bill are “definitely not suicidal” but rather “they are dying, and they have no choice about that.”
Outside Parliament, advocates for and against the proposed legislation demonstrated, making their opinions known as the Bill progresses toward potential enactment in England and Wales.
Inside, the House of Lords’ benches were filled to capacity, with a record number of peers requesting to speak as the two-day debate began. Leadbeater, who introduced the Bill in the Commons, observed from the gallery.
Baroness May, speaking in opposition, cautioned against the risk of medical cover-ups, and relayed that a friend refers to it as the “license to kill Bill.”
She stated that, in her view, the legislation would constitute “an assisted suicide Bill,” adding: “Suicide is wrong, but this Bill, effectively, says suicide is okay. What message does that give to our society?”
She argued that the Bill lacked adequate safeguards to prevent coercion, and expressed concern about the potential normalization of suicide for individuals who feel their lives are “less worth living than others.”
“I worry about the impact it will have on people with disabilities, with chronic illness, with mental health problems, because there is a risk that legalising assisted dying reinforces the dangerous notion that some lives are less worth living than others,” she said.
Leadbeater acknowledged Baroness May’s “very powerful contribution” to the debate, but expressed that she found “the framing around suicide very uncomfortable.”
“The terminally ill people I’ve met are definitely not suicidal,” she told PA Media.
“They definitely don’t want to die, but they are dying, and they have no choice about that.”
The MP for Spen Valley dismissed concerns about potential medical cover-ups, emphasizing that the legislation aims to establish a “very robust” legal framework around assisted death, “rather than the lack of framework that there is at the moment.”
Despite the fact that peers speaking against the Bill outnumbered those in favor by approximately two-to-one on the first of the two-day debate, Leadbeater expressed confidence that the Bill would ultimately be approved by the Lords.
“I do remain confident that the will of the public will be respected, as will the will of the elected chamber,” she said, referring to the House of Commons.
During the debate, peers on both sides of the issue delivered emotional appeals, many sharing personal stories of loss that informed their positions.
Former justice secretary Lord Charlie Falconer, the Bill’s sponsor in the Lords, characterized the current legal situation as “confused,” causing “terrible suffering,” and lacking “compassion and safeguards.”
Lord Falconer assured peers that there would be “more than enough time” for scrutiny before the current Parliamentary session concludes next spring, and that he was “very open” to suggestions for how the Bill could be “further strengthened and improved.”
However, he reminded his colleagues that the Bill had already been passed by MPs and that the House of Lords should “respect the primacy of the Commons,” rather than attempting to block the legislation.
“We must do our job in this House, and our job is not to frustrate, it is to scrutinise,” he said.
As the debate commenced, Conservative peer Lord Forsyth of Drumlean shared that he had changed his mind on the issue after his father, who “died in agony” from cancer, blamed his son for preventing him from ending his suffering.
“I was completely poleaxed by that,” he said, adding his father told him: “you have consistently voted to prevent me getting what I want, which is having the opportunity to decide how and when I come to die”.
“As a Christian I have thought about that long and hard, and come to the conclusion that my father was right,” he added.
House of Cards trilogy author Lord Michael Dobbs described the current legal framework as “cruel and untenable” and insisted those who were opposed for religious reasons had “no right to impose your view on others”.
He said: “I wish I’d had the opportunity out of love to help my mother pass peacefully in my arms, instead of watching her years of suffering.
“It would have been her choice, but she had no choice, and instead I’m left with an enduring memory of endless pain.”
Speaking in support, Baroness Margaret Hodge said “denying choice represents a fundamental attack on the freedom and right of individuals to control their life at that terrible time when they’re dying”.
She said: “In my view, we’re presented with a straightforward choice: are we prepared to allow people in this country faced with certain and imminent death to choose how they die?
“I want that choice for myself, I would have wanted that choice for those close to me whom I have seen die in terrible agony.”
Speaking against, Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson said certain aspects of the assisted dying Bill “blur the line” for doctors around euthanasia.
Lady Grey-Thompson, a Paralympian and long-time campaigner on the rights of disabled people, said: “Clause 25, sub-clause eight, allows the co-ordinating doctor to assist the person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance. This blurs the line between assisted dying and euthanasia.”
Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally has warned that the “choice” to die “is an illusion” without “fully-funded palliative and social care services”.
Dame Sarah told the Lords: “Above all, this Bill fails in its central plank, that it delivers choice.
“A meaningful choice would see the measures in this Bill set alongside equally available, fully-funded palliative and social care services.
“Without the choice offered, this choice is an illusion.”
The House of Lords will continue its scrutiny of the Bill on Friday, 19 September.
Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It’ll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Opponents of the proposed law for England and Wales say there should be further scrutiny before peers discuss the issue.
A Jersey scrutiny panel aims to ensure new choices for terminally ill people are fit for purpose.
The Right Reverend Sophie Jelley became Coventry’s first female bishop in February.
The health minister is to ask the States whether a new end-of-life care law is needed.
Lord Paul had been deputy speaker of the House of Lords and chancellor of Wolverhampton university.
“`