Labour Lords, who advocated for legal change, said Parliament faced a once-in-a-generation opportunity to give terminally ill people the choice whether to end their own lives.
Charlie Falconer, a former Lord Chancellor who introduced the Bill in the House of Lords last month, said he had received assurances from Downing Street that the Bill would not block pro-euthanasia advocates’ historic vote in the Commons.
In an interview observerHowever, he said some of the tragic stories already told by politicians on this issue were “just the tip of the parliamentary iceberg” in terms of the strength of the feelings some Lords and MPs had expressed towards him. He has proposed allowing euthanasia for terminally ill adults.
Lord Falconer said the best way to get a vote through would be through a private member’s bill in the House of Commons, which would be attempted as soon as MPs return from their summer recess. If successful, the law could be changed by the end of next year.
He warned that history shows that any vote is a rare opportunity to effect change. “If you lose the vote, it’s going to be off the table forever,” he said. “It all comes down to the vote in the House.”
“This is a fantastic opportunity. The last time this bill came up for a vote, the House of Commons clearly voted against it. But of the 650 MPs who were there in 2015, 477 have now left. There’s a whole new House of Commons and a whole new atmosphere. The Prime Minister has said: ‘You must decide by free vote and if you go in favour the Government will ensure that it doesn’t fail through procedural manoeuvres’.”
“Over the last decade or so, there has been a lot more attention paid to this issue. Many other countries around the world have tackled the issue and changed their laws. But here too, there is a growing awareness of the confusion in the law. And people are becoming more and more concerned about the quality of their lives and the quality of their deaths.”
The issue of euthanasia will be addressed in December 2023. observer Shortly before her death in 2020, actress Diana Rigg revealed that she had recorded a message calling for laws that would give people “real authority over their own bodies at the end of their lives”.
Named after TV host Esther Rantzen suffer from terminal cancerhave joined the calls for reform, with Keir Starmer saying he supports it.
Before the election, he told Rantzen, Secure Parliamentary Time To debate the issue and hold a free vote.
Mr Falconer said the bill in the House of Lords faced procedural difficulties in getting to a vote in the Commons, but the same bill introduced by an MP could be passed. “Number 10 has made it very clear to me that they are standing by what Keir has said,” he said. “I have no doubt that Keir is standing by that commitment.”
The Labour peer said personal experience led him to apply his legal knowledge to the issue many years ago. “I, like many others, have experienced the death of a loved one,” he said. “And in the final weeks, the final months, a period when there is nothing else but the apparent imminent death, that person withdraws more and more. And all that awaits them is more humiliation, more pain, more struggle.”
“I believe that the option for terminally ill people to receive assistance in ending their treatment is a compassionate and necessary choice that they should have. As I thought more about this issue after my personal experience, I realized how unfair the law is. Esther Rantzen recently brought this issue into focus very effectively, and it’s the culmination of a decade of people really talking about it.”
After newsletter promotion
He said he limited the bill to only those with terminal illnesses with six months or less to live to avoid the “tip of the wedge” that some opponents fear, and said he opposed the idea of applying it to everyone living with “unbearable suffering”, as some countries have done, because he believes this could lead to unintended cases.
“Generally speaking, I don’t think the state should assist people in taking their own lives,” he said. “I think the state should give terminally ill people a choice about how they want to end their life. And I think those are two very different situations.”
“That’s how it remains in every jurisdiction around the world because the law began as a law for terminal illness, not a law for intolerable suffering. This is not the thin end of the wedge.”
“The first one was enacted in Oregon. It started out as a terminal illness law and it remains a terminal illness law. Some people have said they have great misgivings about Oregon. But many of the people who were against it are now saying it’s clearly the right thing to do and people should have this option.”
“Having options makes the final months bearable for terminally ill people because they know they have options.”
