A critical piece of legislation that would allow terminally ill people in England and Wales to seek an assisted death is facing a formidable blockade in the House of Lords, prompting accusations of an anti-democratic outrage. The bill, championed by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, was approved by the House of Commons in June but is now being subjected to what supporters describe as wrecking tactics by a minority of peers.
A Barrage of Amendments
Peers have tabled a staggering over 1,000 amendments to the Assisted Dying Bill, a move that leading advocates argue is designed to strangle the proposed law through procedural overload rather than constructive scrutiny. In a letter to the Guardian, Dr Jacky Davis, Chair of Healthcare Professionals for Assisted Dying, highlighted the absurdity of some proposals, such as an amendment that would require a 90-year-old with advanced cancer to provide a negative pregnancy test before their request could be approved.
"The bill as currently drafted – which MPs have amended and approved – is safer than any other in the world," Dr Davis stated. She emphasised that the bill includes robust protections, including Clause 31, which ensures no healthcare professional would be compelled to participate against their conscience.
The Core of the Controversy
The debate centres on the bill's current limitation, which permits assistance only for those judged to have six months or less to live. This restriction, intended as a compromise, has become a focal point of criticism. Former appeal court judge Stephen Sedley, also writing in the Guardian, argued this arbitrary timescale is illogical and denies help to those, like the late Tony Nicklinson, who face a lifetime of unbearable suffering from conditions like locked-in syndrome.
Sedley called for the government to promote a new bill that drops the life-expectancy test, allowing doctors to assist patients in ending "a life of indefinite suffering." This view finds support from some medical professionals who believe the current law robs dying people of their agency.
Democratic Tensions and the Path Forward
The situation has ignited a constitutional row, with critics accusing an unelected chamber of obstructing the will of the democratically elected Commons. Dr Davis drew a "sad parallel" between some in the medical establishment dictating end-of-life choices and a vocal minority in the Lords who "think they know better than Westminster’s democratically elected chamber."
Despite the opposition, the bill retains significant support. Its passage through the Commons demonstrates a substantial parliamentary majority for reform. The central question now is whether the government will intervene to break the logjam or allow the Lords' amendments to fatally delay the legislation. As Dr Davis concluded, "Dying people are depending on parliament to find a way through this."
