Peers who oppose medically assisted suicide have countered claims that they are attempting to “filibuster” or run out the clock on the controversial measure.
During a debate in the Lords on Friday, former Paralympic champion, Baroness Grey-Thompson, an opponent of the bill, said that alleged blocking manoeuvres were actually indicative of the failure of the bill’s supporters to provide clear answers to valid concerns.
She spoke of “the sense of frustration that we are not getting answers to the amendments we are tabling in good faith. I hope that the noble and learned Lord [Falconer] will be able to answer these questions, so that we can move with a bit more pace”.
The debate then moved on to some of the provisions and proposed amendments to the bill.
First among them was a proposal that those seeking to end their own lives should first have an in-person assessment with a medical professional as a safeguard against coercion.
Lord Empey, of the Ulster Unionists warned, “I find it exceptionally objectionable that, for somebody in those conditions, the state could effectively provide a service to assist them to kill themselves over the phone.
“That is what we are talking about here. It is conceivable, I suppose, that there could be special circumstances for trying to assess people remotely but, as with everything else in this bill, if we had worked this thing out properly, we would have covered a lot of this. I think this part of the bill is fundamentally unsafe.”
The debate also looked at questions around the definition of terminal illness, how someone who dies by medically assisted suicide would have their cause of death recorded, and what support would be in place for those seeking assisted suicide.
In particular, concerns were raised about a proposal to allow those with “injuries” to end their own lives by assisted suicide. Opponents of the bill pointed out that by allowing those with injuries to end their lives, the bill would open the door to military veterans to end their own lives and that there was a significant possibility that the courts would over time expand the definition of who could qualify for assisted suicide.
