Lords back bill to legalise assisted suicide

Lords back bill to legalise assisted suicide

A private member’s bill to legalise doctor assisted suicide in England and Wales was given an unopposed first reading in the House of Lords last week.

The Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill replaces a bill introduced by the crossbench peer Joel Joffe that lapsed in April when parliament was dissolved for the general election and that would have legalised voluntary euthanasia as well as doctor assisted suicide. A select committee that took extensive evidence on the earlier bill was divided on the issues. Lord Joffe has dropped provisions to legalise voluntary euthanasia and concentrated solely on doctor assisted suicide.

The bill would not require changes to the law on murder but only a small amendment to the Suicide Act 1961, which makes it a serious crime to aid and abet a suicide.

Lord Joffe said the bill would enable an adult "who has capacity and is suffering unbearably as a result of terminal illness" to get medical assistance to die "at his own considered and persistent request."

Without government support the bill has no chance of reaching the statute book. But if it gets through its stages in the House of Lords a Labour MP, Joan Ruddock, has said that she will introduce the bill into the House of Commons. Ms Ruddock chairs the All Party Compassion in Dying Group of MPs

Lord Joffe’s revised bill is modelled on the law in Oregon, where doctor assisted suicide is allowed. The doctor would not administer a drug to end the patient’s life but would write a prescription for the patient to take.

A majority of the select committee of peers who considered the previous bill said they would support the revised bill.

Lord Joffe said: "I have listened to the views in parliament and among medical professionals and believe there is more support for a law which requires the patient to take the final act. This seems to reassure doctors that the patient is exercising a choice and is less difficult to them on a personal level.

"Patients want to exercise choice. Palliative care alone does not provide that, and there is a small but determined group of individuals who will not be deflected from their desire to have an assisted death by more or better palliative care. It is unjust to force them to continue to suffer when there is an answer that is safe and works well."

The patient would have to make a written request and would first be obliged to have a consultation with a specialist about the benefits of palliative care. Doctors would have no duty to raise the issue of assisted suicide with the patient or to find another doctor who would help, and the revised bill has stronger conscientious objection clauses covering all health professionals and institutions such as hospitals and hospices.

Ms Ruddock said: "The bill brings transparency and safeguards well beyond those employed in current medical practice. I urge the government to give the bill adequate time for consideration by both houses so that the views of the public may be properly articulated within their democratic institutions."

Some groups objected strongly to the Bill, however. Peter Saunders, general secretary of the Christian Medical Fellowship, representing 5000 UK doctors, said: "We remain opposed to this move to make assisted dying more palatable. A lot of pressure has been exerted to convince peers and the public that PAS [physician assisted suicide] is not ‘euthanasia proper.’ But the key issue is intention. There is no moral difference between PAS and euthanasia."

A copy of the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill is available on the Voluntary Euthanasia Society’s website (www.ves.org.uk).