Good to stand today as one of 62 Peers who opposed the Meacher Bill today, including doctors, Peers with disabilities, lawyers, and many who say that the Bill has inadequate safeguards. It should not be allowed onto the Statute Books.
1.47pmLord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my unpaid interests in the register.
Both Houses began this week in sorrowful and tragic circumstances, with appeals to listen to different points of view with respect.
Today’s debate is an instructive example of how to do that.
The arguments are not new or uncontested, and there is, as we have heard today in many moving speeches, no settled view.
Hansard records that more than 482,000 words have been spoken on this issue, occupying 62 hours in the last 20 years, and we have had two Select Committee inquiries. After Lord Walton of Detchant’s inquiry, he told the House that, ultimately, the inquiry believed that the arguments in favour of legislation were
“insufficient reason to weaken society’s prohibition of intentional killing which is the cornerstone of the law and social relationships”.
The Select Committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, provided what has been the most in-depth examination ever into this complex and emotive subject.
Over nine months, it cross-examined and questioned 150 expert witnesses in four countries. It received reams of written evidence.
In a three-volume report of about 1,000 pages, it highlighted many of the serious issues that we have discussed again today, particularly on the deeply problematic subject of safeguards.
Notwithstanding the good intentions of those who produce these recurring Bills, the same unanswered questions about the risks to vulnerable people, the compromising of medical ethics, the danger of incrementalism, the impact on the family courts and the lack of safeguards remain, and they remain unanswered.
The Bill before the House does little to address the serious issues raised in the Mackay report.
In truth, what are described as safeguards are simply a wish list of what its sponsors hope will happen in an ideal world, but, as we have heard from so many noble Lords, we do not live in an ideal world.
Some seem to think that this is just a detail that can be covered in codes of practice but, in a Bill dealing with matters of life and death, safety is a key issue of principle and not a detail.
It would be profoundly irresponsible to enact legislation without knowing how many putative safeguards might work. Asking us to do otherwise is like asking Parliament to sign a blank cheque.
Reference has been made to religious views. I was very struck by the comments of the i columnist Ian Birrell, who said that as an atheist
“I am alarmed by the naive groundswell of demand for euthanasia to be legalised … Until we start to show care and respect for all citizens … we should not unleash such lethally dangerous reform”
as assisted dying.
The Mackay committee received letters from over 12,000 members of the public. Their views of whether the law should be changed were exactly 50/50. When the House of Commons considered the issue, the elected House came out overwhelmingly against a similar Bill; it was defeated by 330 votes to 118.
This is a deeply contested issue but there has been unity across the House about one thing: the importance of dignity, care, support and unconditional love for those in these circumstances.
Our united voice should be raised against patchy palliative care and in favour of hospice provision, care, and support for those who work in them.
The post Good to stand and speak with 62 Peers today opposing the Meacher Bill (assisted suicide). appeared first on David Alton.
