A Flawed Attempt at Scrutiny: Peers' 1,000 Amendments Water Down Assisted Dying Bill
The House of Lords has tabled an astonishing 1,000 amendments to the assisted dying bill, sparking debate about the level of independent scrutiny this represents. Critics argue that these changes effectively neuter the bill's potential to provide a lifeline for terminally ill patients.
One such amendment requiring a negative pregnancy test before a request is approved for assisted dying has been met with outrage. Such a stringent measure can be seen as an attempt by a vocal minority in the Lords to halt the progress of the law change altogether.
In contrast, the bill as currently drafted offers greater protections for doctors and patients alike. Clause 31 ensures that healthcare professionals are under no obligation to support assisted dying if they choose not to, providing a safeguard against coercion or undue pressure.
However, critics contend that the bill's current parameters – limiting assistance to those with six months or less to live – are misguided and unjustifiable. The inclusion of such an arbitrary deadline gives fodder for opponents, allowing them to argue that the legislation is an attack on the sanctity of life.
Dr Lucy Thomas has highlighted the illogic of this approach, pointing out that it leaves patients in indefinite pain and distress without access to a meaningful option. Patients like Tony Nicklinson, who were left with no choice but to rely on the mercy of parliament to end their suffering, are stark reminders of the need for reform.
The time has come for responsible government action. In exchange for the well-intentioned bill that has garnered substantial Commons support, ministers should push forward a revised assisted dying bill that drops the arbitrary six-month deadline and empowers doctors to provide patients with the autonomy they so desperately crave.
This overhaul would allow healthcare professionals to play a vital role in facilitating life-ending interventions, providing much-needed agency and dignity for those facing unbearable suffering. The fate of these patients hangs precariously in the balance, as parliament wrestles with the complex issues surrounding assisted dying.
The House of Lords has tabled an astonishing 1,000 amendments to the assisted dying bill, sparking debate about the level of independent scrutiny this represents. Critics argue that these changes effectively neuter the bill's potential to provide a lifeline for terminally ill patients.
One such amendment requiring a negative pregnancy test before a request is approved for assisted dying has been met with outrage. Such a stringent measure can be seen as an attempt by a vocal minority in the Lords to halt the progress of the law change altogether.
In contrast, the bill as currently drafted offers greater protections for doctors and patients alike. Clause 31 ensures that healthcare professionals are under no obligation to support assisted dying if they choose not to, providing a safeguard against coercion or undue pressure.
However, critics contend that the bill's current parameters – limiting assistance to those with six months or less to live – are misguided and unjustifiable. The inclusion of such an arbitrary deadline gives fodder for opponents, allowing them to argue that the legislation is an attack on the sanctity of life.
Dr Lucy Thomas has highlighted the illogic of this approach, pointing out that it leaves patients in indefinite pain and distress without access to a meaningful option. Patients like Tony Nicklinson, who were left with no choice but to rely on the mercy of parliament to end their suffering, are stark reminders of the need for reform.
The time has come for responsible government action. In exchange for the well-intentioned bill that has garnered substantial Commons support, ministers should push forward a revised assisted dying bill that drops the arbitrary six-month deadline and empowers doctors to provide patients with the autonomy they so desperately crave.
This overhaul would allow healthcare professionals to play a vital role in facilitating life-ending interventions, providing much-needed agency and dignity for those facing unbearable suffering. The fate of these patients hangs precariously in the balance, as parliament wrestles with the complex issues surrounding assisted dying.
So like what's up with all these amendments right? 1k changes to a bill that's supposed to help ppl in dire situations... it's kinda confusing. Like, shouldn't we be focusing on making sure patients have options rather than getting bogged down in red tape? 
honestly speaking, 1000 amendments feel like too many to me 
. it's like they're trying to sugarcoat what's already a sensitive topic 
. i think we need a clear cut approach here, not so much back and forth 
. patients are already feeling trapped, do we really want to add more complexity? let's focus on the core of the issue - providing compassion & support for those who need it most 
. no one should have to live in pain & suffering, that's just not right 
.
I'm so frustrated with all these amendments to the assisted dying bill 
! It's like they're trying to strangle the life out of it 
. 1,000 amendments? That's just too much 
. The current clause 31 is a good start, but we need more concrete action on dropping that six-month deadline 
. It's like they're giving hope to patients for nothing 
! Let's get this bill passed and let patients have control over their own lives 
meanwhile patients are still stuck in limbo waiting for their dignity to be respected 
but come on 6 months or less is still way too restrictive 
to appease everyone. The pregnancy test amendment is insane 
. We should be empowering doctors and patients to make their own choices, not restricting them with unnecessary rules 
.
. It's clear that some folks in the Lords are more concerned with prolonging the debate than actually making progress.
. What's next? A paternity test to make sure you're not just trying to get out of a commitment? Give me a break 
. And what about all those patients like Tony Nicklinson who are literally dying of pain and suffering right now? Do we really need six months of "protection" before they can even consider ending their own lives? It's just so... delayed 
... i mean, 1000?!?! what even is that? 
... meanwhile, patients like tony nicklinson are still stuck 
it doesn't even feel fair to the patients who need this option. I mean, what if you're in pain and you just wanna die already? 
. It's like, come on! This is about giving people a choice, not policing their reproductive lives 
.
!
. The real issue here is that some people are scared of change and want to cling to the status quo, even if it means denying dying patients their right to die with dignity 
We need to have an open and honest discussion about what it means to live a dignified life, not be held hostage by bureaucratic red tape. 
. We can't let them push this around like it's some kind of joke. These people are counting on us to make a change.
and for what? So some ppl in the Lords can try to slow down progress? 
. And what with the pregnancy test amendment and all, I think we're being held hostage by a vocal minority in the Lords 
. Let's push for that revised bill already!