A Labour MP and former NHS surgeon has launched a scathing attack on the House of Lords, accusing peers of using "crackpot" amendments to filibuster and delay crucial legislation on assisted dying.
Former Surgeon's Stark Warning on Patient Suffering
Peter Prinsley, the MP for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, drew on his medical experience to argue passionately for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. He described witnessing patients endure "dreadful" deaths from conditions like advanced head and neck cancers.
"I've seen patients whose lives have become quite intolerable," Prinsley stated. He detailed the horrific progression of such illnesses, including the loss of speech and swallow, blocked airways, and in some cases, fatal haemorrhages. "That really is the most dreadful end of a life," he said.
The 'Filibuster' and 'Bonkers' Amendments
Prinsley revealed he has been urging the Leader of the House of Commons to extend the current parliamentary session, which is due to end around Spring 2026. This move is intended to thwart what he calls delay tactics in the Lords.
He pointed to the more than 1,000 amendments tabled for the bill, labelling many as deliberate obstructions. "Some of them are completely crackpot," he asserted. As examples, he cited an amendment insisting all patients take a pregnancy test, calling it "self-evidently bonkers" for an elderly man with prostate cancer, and another restricting overseas travel in a patient's final year.
"What's going on here is a filibuster," Prinsley declared. "They are amendments designed to disable the process rather than actually sensible suggestions."
Constitutional Clash and Public Will
The MP suggested that a "group of people philosophically opposed", such as the bishops in the Lords, should openly state their position instead of hiding behind procedural delays. He warned of a potential "constitutional difficulty" if the Lords defies the elected Commons on an issue where public opinion is strongly in favour.
"If it did in fact fall as a result of what was going on in the Lords, this might have consequences for the Lords themselves," he cautioned. The bill, championed by MP Kim Leadbeater, aims to provide a carefully considered choice for terminally ill adults.
Opponents of the legislation argue it risks changing society's attitude towards the vulnerable and that high-quality palliative care can alleviate suffering. However, Prinsley countered that there are limits to such care and that the choice should be available. "Who are we to deny that?" he asked.
