Pro-life campaigners have criticized a decision by the British House of Lords select committee examining the ‘Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill’ to restrict written evidence to a small group of invited witnesses.
Despite significant changes to the assisted suicide bill since it was introduced last year—including the removal of key safeguards such as mandatory High Court oversight—the committee says it will not accept wider expert or public submissions due to time constraints. The committee will hold several oral sessions through November before reporting back to the Lords.
MPs and peers from across parties have condemned the move as undemocratic and “deeply troubling,” warning that it limits proper scrutiny of legislation dealing with life-and-death issues. Reform MP Danny Kruger called the restriction “a very bad sign,” while Liberal Democrat Tim Farron said it appeared to be an attempt “to limit scrutiny and debate.”
Catherine Robinson of Right To Life UK said the refusal to take evidence from a broader range of experts was “bordering on scandalous,” arguing that the new version of the bill poses even greater risks to the vulnerable.
When the bill was examined in committee in the House of Commons, the committee itself was made up of 14 proponents and 9 opponents of the legislation, and of the nine lawyers invited to testify, six were active supporters of assisted suicide, and at least two of the others appeared neutral on the issue.
The assisted suicide bill passed in the House of Commons on a narrow vote in June, and has been roundly criticized, including by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, who warned that the legislation does not provide “adequate protection of patients and professionals.”
Proponents of the bill were probably not helped by Lord Falconer—a Labour politician and life peer, who appears to have made this issue a personal cause over the past 16 years—stating that “people with learning difficulties or autism” could “with proper assistance” “have the option” to access assisted suicide.
