Why this is not the end of the campaign for assisted dying
Christine Jardine MP laments MSPs’ decision to vote against the Assisted Dying Bill and castigates peers in the House of Lords for blocking a similar bill approved by the Commons
We cannot let this be the death of choice at the end of life for terminally ill adults. The vote in Scotland, while a devastating disappointment to those who had fought so hard for it, was surely felt most acutely by those who will now be denied that choice.
I cannot imagine how it must have felt to be coping with a terminal diagnosis, holding on to the hope that relief might be available if it became too painful, and then have that snatched away. And to know at the same time that the most recent polling shows that the majority of your compatriots want you to have that option must add to the sadness.
The fact that the vote was closer than ever before was, I fear, of little consolation. Our MSPs reached a decision which will, and must, be respected.
Lords blocking a democratic decision
At Westminster, MPs – and the public depending on the exercising of democratic responsibility – are being denied that possibility. Instead, a small minority of the unelected House of Lords is blocking the democratic decision of the Commons by talking out the Bill.
Of the astonishing number of amendments tabled – 1,200 – more than half have been submitted by just eight peers. That same minority make multiple, repetitious interventions.
Many of the amendments appear to have little to do with genuine safeguards for assisted dying. Rather, they seem designed to make the Bill impractical, less safe and more distressing for the dying person seeking to navigate the process.
Among those I personally find most upsetting are the demand for a negative pregnancy test and that the death must be filmed. That a family going through the trauma of losing a loved one in any circumstances should be compelled to film it, or have someone do it for them, is inconceivable.
With only two more days assigned to the Bill in the Lords – March 27 and April 24 – it would take a colossal shift in sentiment and tactics for the Bill to complete its passage and return to the Commons.
How to die should be our choice
While scrutiny by the second chamber has its place, it should not be able to be abused in this way. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 were designed to prevent the Lords blocking the will of the elected chamber.
As Private Members’ Bills are covered by the Acts, if the same Bill returns in the next session and is passed by the Commons, the Lords would not be able to talk it out a second time. They could still propose amendments to be incorporated if accepted by the Commons, but they would have to complete the task this time.
There will be those who applaud the tactics which have brought us to the current impasse but for me, regardless of my own feelings, it is a dereliction of democracy.
The elected representatives of the people voted to reflect public opinion and legislate for a very narrow change in the law to allow terminally ill adults to ease their passage.
I have said before that I do not know what I would do. But I do not believe that I have the right to deny someone else that choice. And neither does the House of Lords.
Christine Jardine is the Scottish Liberal Democrat MP for Edinburgh West
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.