No amount of scrutiny will ever satisfy those fundamentally opposed to assisted dying law

DELAYS CAUSING MISERY FOR THE TERMINALLY ILL

- HANNA GEISSLER Health Editor

CHRISTMAS has come early for opponents of the Assisted Dying Bill. Having spent the last year complaining that the legislation is being rushed without enough time for proper scrutiny, they have the gift of 10 extra days for the House of Lords to debate it next year.

If used constructively, this should allow time for many more of the 1,000-plus amendments tabled to be considered and for real progress to be made. But instead of expressing gratitude, critics are up in arms about “preferential treatment” for what is perhaps the most important private members’ bill to come before parliament in a generation. This is because, despite MPs having backed the legislation in two major votes and independent polling showing the majority of the public supports this change, a small group of hardline opponents is hellbent on derailing the bill.

The staggering number of changes tabled in the Lords is the most seen in recent parliamentary history — and two thirds have been submitted by just eight peers.

Analysis by the Hansard Society showed the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill received at least four times more amendments per page than any other bill this parliamentary session.

As Dame Esther Rantzen pointed out last week, no one could argue that every one of these changes represents a genuine attempt to improve the legislation. She called it what it is: “Sabotage.”

One proposed amendment would require anyone seeking assisted dying, including for example a 90-year-old man with prostate cancer or a woman with cervical cancer who has had a hysterectomy, to present a negative pregnancy test. Others would effectively ban holidays in the last year of a person’s life, or mandate their final moments are captured on film.

While some changes are more sensible, peers should heed the warning of England’s chief medical officer Professor Sir Chris Whitty about the risk of dying people spending their last months “stuck in a bureaucratic thicket”.