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 Plea for Compassionate Choice
Peter Prinsley, the MP for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket and a former ear, nose, and throat surgeon, spoke passionately in the Commons in support of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Drawing on his medical experience, he described witnessing patients endure "dreadful" deaths from advanced cancers.
He told of patients with head and neck cancers losing the ability to speak, swallow, and eventually breathe, facing a "most dreadful end of a life". Prinsley argued that while palliative care has limits, the choice of assisted dying should be available. "Who are we to deny that?" he asked.
'Bonkers' Amendments and Suspected Filibuster
The MP revealed he has been urging the Leader of the House of Commons to extend the current parliamentary session to prevent the bill from falling. He alleges that more than a thousand amendments have been tabled in the Lords, many designed to sabotage the process.
He labelled specific proposals as "self-evidently bonkers", citing an amendment insisting all patients take a pregnancy test—even elderly men with prostate cancer—and another restricting overseas travel in the final year of life. "What's going on here is a filibuster," Prinsley stated, accusing a philosophically opposed group, including the 21 Bishops in the Lords, of hiding behind procedural tactics rather than openly debating.
Constitutional Clash and Public Will
Prinsley issued a stark warning about potential constitutional consequences for the unelected House of Lords if it defies the will of the elected Commons. He emphasised that public opinion is "very, very strongly in favour" of the reform.
He suggested that if the government allowed the bill to carry over into the next session, the filibuster would end immediately as delaying tactics would become pointless. The current session is due to end around Spring 2026.
Opponents of the bill contend it could pressure vulnerable groups and argue that high-quality palliative care is sufficient. However, Prinsley and supporters of the legislation maintain it is a matter of compassionate choice for those facing intolerable suffering at the end of their lives.
