A glimmer of hope: the Lords is uncovering the truth about assisted suicide

On Friday, the House of Lords concluded its two-day second reading debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. As is convention, the bill wasn’t voted down at this stage, but there was a significant victory: Labour peer Baroness Berger successfully passed an amendment to set up a special select committee to scrutinise the bill before it moves to the next stage.

This matters. Too often assisted suicide debates can feel like shovelling snow while it’s still snowing, many claims stretch the truth, and there simply isn’t time to unpack them properly. This extra committee will slow the process and allow peers to dig deeper into the serious concerns surrounding the bill. We can be confident that the truth will continue to come out. 

Sponsored

Pro-assisted suicide campaigners know this is a blow. At first, Dignity in Dying branded the amendment a ​“wrecking amendment”. Just days later, they accepted it. Why the change? Because they know the tide is turning and they don’t have the numbers to force this through quickly. Time and scrutiny are the enemies of a deeply flawed bill.

The debate saw more than twice as many peers speak against the bill as for it. The Lords, unlike the Commons, includes many experts with decades of experience in medicine, law, and ethics. Their speeches were powerful and deeply personal.

Former prime minister Theresa May, now Baroness May of Maidenhead, gave the most striking speech of the first day. She called the bill ​“a licence to kill”, asking bluntly: ​“Suicide is wrong, but this bill, effectively, says suicide is OK. What message does that give to our society?”

Her words caused uproar among supporters, who said they were ​“insensitive” and made them ​“uncomfortable”. But as May made clear, the consequences of this bill should make us all uncomfortable.

Surprisingly, May’s fundamental point wasn’t shared by everyone. Baroness Hayter countered: ​“I do not think she should prevent others from exercising a different view. I disagree with her that: As a society, we believe that suicide is wrong.”

Lord Polak followed with a deeply moving intervention: ​“I speak out of a deep and abiding concern for the society we are shaping, for the values we hold and for the vulnerable, whom we are duty-bound to protect, and I speak as someone who was given six months to live 37 years ago.”

Baroness Prentis, former attorney general, also spoke with remarkable honesty about her recent cancer diagnosis: ​“My prognosis is excellent, but there have been some very low moments in the past few weeks, when I have realised the burden I am to my family.”

Her words cut to the heart of why this bill is so dangerous in real time: many people facing illness feel they are a burden, even when their families do not see them that way.

The more the bill is examined, the more its weaknesses are exposed. Safeguards that were promised early on have been watered down. Incredibly, many of the key protections aren’t even written into the bill. Instead, they’re left to government ministers to decide upon later in so-called ​“Henry VIII powers.”

At 42 separate delegated Henry VIII powers, this bill would give ministers one of the highest levels of unchecked authority seen in modern legislation. That means major decisions affecting life and death could be made without parliament’s approval.

No wonder peers demanded more time to study it properly. 

Last Friday, faith leaders also brought a vital perspective. The Bishop of Chichester rooted his opposition in the very nature of God, referencing the Trinity: ​“Distinctness and relationality in God also become characteristic of how and what, in love, God makes us to be as human beings, endowing us with free will and the capacity to use or misuse God’s gift of life in all its dimensions.”

Lord Taylor of Warwick also reflected on biblical examples of despair: ​“In the Bible there were five characters in particular who contemplated suicide: Hannah, Elijah, Job, David and Jonah. But in each case, even during the anguish of their suffering, they eventually found that the God who created them gave them a reason to continue living until the natural time for their death.”

The arguments in favour also seem to be growing weaker and more troubling as the debate progresses. Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe appeared to endorse assisted suicide as a form of population control: ​“Just think what the 2025 numbers would be if abortion had not been legalised or there had not been wide-scale usage and advocacy of contraception. Indeed, the growth of homosexuality throughout society has reduced the number of children that we would have had.”

Those who fear scrutiny most are usually those with something to hide. This extra committee will not fix everything, but it ensures that peers have the time and space to expose the bill’s flaws.

As the debate continues, we must keep praying that the hearts of policymakers will be softened and that light will be shed on every hidden danger.

“But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, and everything that is illuminated becomes a light.” – Ephesians 5:13

This fight is far from over, but last week proved that truth and persistence can slow even the most determined push for change. We are currently working on a tool for you to email an undecided peer before the next stage. You will see an update on that shortly.