Assisted dying bill defeated
The Assisted Dying Bill (No 2) was rejected by MPs with 330 MPs voting against the legislation and 118 voting in favour.
The legislation, based on Lord Falconer’s previous Bill in the House of Lords came in for strong criticism by MPs across the chamber for a whole variety of reasons, most notably in relation to its safeguards.
The proposals would have allowed people with fewer than six months to live to take a prescribed lethal dose of drugs, with approval from two doctors and a High Court judge.
They were opposed by the Royal Colleges of Physicians, the British and World Medical Associations, elderly and disabled organisations, and right-to-life advocates.
Public policy charity CARE, one of the UK’s largest Christian charities and a prominent campaigner against assisted suicide, said the outcome was a victory for vulnerable and elderly people across the nation.
The charity’s CEO said the government should make significant investments in developing palliative care and the UK’s already extensive hospice network to ensure all patients have access to quality end-of-life care.
CARE CEO Nola Leach said: 'I’m delighted so many MPs voted against this bill and the margin of victory is clear and comprehensive.
'The legalisation of assisted suicide would have been a fundamental departure from our nation’s compassionate heritage and a dangerous mistake to make.
'Far from being broken, the current law protects both doctors and patients and assisted suicide would only undermine that protection and parliament today has overwhelmingly rejected the arguments calling for a radical change to that law.
'This is a positive day for many vulnerable people who are understandably concerned by the bill which would have enabled servants of the state such as doctors to prescribe lethal medication, contradicting the vital ‘do not harm’ principle which underpins the medical profession.
'People on both sides of this debate share a common desire to ensure people are helped at the end of their lives and now MPs have rejected assisted suicide as incompatible with a caring society, it is time for the government to make significant investments in palliative care and our hospices to ensure all have access to the best possible end-of-life care.'
The anti-euthanasia campaign group Care Not Killing also issued a statement welcoming the rejection of the bill.
Dr Peter Saunders, Campaign Director of Care Not Killing, said, 'Parliamentarians have rightly rejected the legalisation on assisted suicide and euthanasia five times since 2006 out of concern for public safety – in the House of Lords (2006 and 2009) in Scotland (2010 and 2015) and now in the House of Commons.
'They have done this because they have witnessed mission creep in the tiny number of places that have changed the law to allow assisted suicide and euthanasia - countries like Belgium, the Netherlands and the American state of Oregon.
'In Belgium, which introduced a law to help terminally ill mentally competent adults, we have seen the case of Mark and Eddy Verbessem, the 45-year-old deaf identical twins, who were killed by the Belgium state, after their eyesight began to fail. Or Nathan/Nancy Verhelst, whose life was ended in front of TV cameras, after a series of botched sex-change operations. Or the case of Ann G, an anorexia sufferer who opted to have her life ended after being sexually abused by the psychiatrist who was supposed to be treating her for the life-threatening condition. Now both Belgium and Holland have extended their law to include non-mentally competent children.
'In Oregon which is the model for this piece of legislation, assisted suicide rates have increase dramatically since its introduction. At the same time because of health care rationing we have seen those suffering from cancer refused potentially life saving and life extending treatments, while being offered the lethal cocktails of drugs to kill themself with.
'In neighbouring Washington State six in ten people ending their lives under a similar law do so out of fear of being a burden. Just as troubling was the study that found nearly one in six were suffering from clinical treatable depression.
'This is why changing the law on assisted suicide and euthanasia is opposed by every major disability rights organisation and doctors' group, including the BMA, Royal Colleges, British Geriatric Society and the Association for Palliative Medicine.'
Dr Saunders added: 'The current law exists to protect those who are sick, elderly, depressed, or disabled from feeling under pressure to end their lives. It protects those who have no voice against exploitation and coercion. It acts as a powerful deterrent to would-be abusers and does not need changing.
'We hope Parliament will now turn its attention to the real issues facing our country of ensuring that everybody can access the very best care, regardless of whether they are disabled or terminally ill and that we fund this adequately.'
Baptist Times, 11/09/2015