A recent House of Commons vote on assisted dying, which was held for the first time in 20 years, has resulted in the proposals for legislation being rejected by the majority of MPs.
The Assisted Dying Bill (No 2), introduced by Labour MP Rob Harris, had the intended purpose of ensuring that terminally ill people could experience peaceful deaths, thereby addressing more than the issue of euthanasia. However, opponents had outnumbered supporters by 212 votes with 118 voting in favour and 330 MPs voting against.
Such debate had arisen in the House of Commons on foot of a UK Supreme Court ruling in 2014 which stated that the Courts did not have authority to rule on the right to die and that such a matter was for the Parliament to address through legislation. The issue was discussed by previous Parliament when Lord Falconer had introduced the first Assisted Dying Bill. The proposed legislation would have given doctors permission to prescribe a lethal dose to terminally ill patients where it is judged that they have less than six months to live. Even though the legislation had passed through committee stage without division, it was held up at the amendment stage which resulted in time expiring before the end of the last Parliament.
Under the proposals contained in this most recent Bill, a number of safeguards were put in place for the terminally ill individual wishing to seek assistance in ending their life. These included requesting assistance in circumstances where the person was diagnosed as having less than six months to live, a High Court judge confirming that the individual was of full decision-making capacity and had a voluntary and informed wish to end their life by having a declaration signed by two doctors. Such provisions were welcomed by doctors who claimed that the current position of the law was dangerous, unfair and cruel as it forces terminally ill patients to travel abroad to end their lives.
However, concerns had been expressed by Paralympian Tanni Grey-Thompson who argued that such a bill would have a negative implication on disabled people’s lives as it “would exacerbate the assumption that because there may be some things [disabled people] cannot do, everything must be negative.”
Click here to read the PILA Bulletin article on the Supreme Court decision.
Click here to watch a video clip of the highlights of the debate on BBC News.