Forum menu
I'm fully on board with assisted dying and assume/hope that's how I'll go out. But this made me laugh...
People are already choosing to forgo palliative care when they would otherwise have gone with it were it not for the current law. People are choosing to die earlier because they know they can not ask for help to die later. They are administering their own drugs or going abroad. The current law is shortening some people’s lives. People seem to be forgetting that.
This x 100, palliative care was not the issue for my sister in law, she just didn't want to be bedridden for the next 20+ yrs, but because of current laws she had to still be able to travel & administer the drugs at Dignitas herself whilst she still had the use of one arm. She would have liked to have lived longer and seen/get to know more of her grandchildren but instead they will never know her for her wicked sense of humour and fortitude.
@montgomery as you can imagine I felt that very close to the bone (have been interviewed under caution for assisting the suicide of my sil) but yes still found it very funny.
Bumpity bump
Looks like a few religous idiots in the lords have managed to filibuster this to wreck it in england but Falconer is confident it will come back next year and will be passed under the parliament act
Its worth noting that all the devolved and separate administrations in the UK have now voted for this (
Scotland is about to have the 3rd and final vote) Wales has had a symbolic vote yes, jersey has a yes vote, IIRC IOM has.
Its only england with the absurd anti democratic lords that its been blocked. Its a complete disgrace
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/feb/26/assisting-dying-bill-not-at-end-of-the-road-falconer
Bumpity bump
Looks like a few religous idiots in the lords have managed to filibuster this to wreck it in england but Falconer is confident it will come back next year and will be passed under the parliament act
Listened to Falconer on R4 this morning.
The Government could push this through sooner, although this is an admittedly rare option.
The irony is that because the HoL have only discussed 3 out of 59 (or something) sections so far that genuine and helpful suggestions won't be considered.
Same discussion, Isle of Man still haven't received Royal Assent for their legislation. Normally expected within six months, now 10 months. No assent, no law.
Jersey has tried to address this by framing their legislation so that assent won't be delayed
iirc fir the parliament act to be used there needs tobe another vote in tbe commons and there is no space in the timetable at the moment
Don't get me wrong, the lord's have sometimes provided valuable scrutiny to bills going through. This is nothing but deliberate vandalism against something supported by a majority of the public. Time to clear house of these unelected scum bags
Is there a list of the members of the HoL who are blocking it?
As far as I am aware all bar Grey Thompson are religious ( or she does not declare / publicise it)
From :
Seven of the most vocal opponents to the Bill have put forward 587 amendments between them:
| Baroness Finlay of Llandaff | 177 |
| Baroness Grey-Thompson | 128 |
| Lord Carlile of Berriew | 65 |
| Baroness Coffey | 61 |
| Lord Goodman of Wycombe | 55 |
| Lord Moylan | 47 |
| Lord Sandhurst |
42 |
Its only england with the absurd anti democratic lords that its been blocked. Its a complete disgrace
Nope its not England but Wales as well. I know its fun to decide England is the centre of all things but best to avoid eh?
If we take the top seven kindly provided by you, well its not looking great for the Welsh is it?
apologies - blocking in Wales as well as its not under the control of the welsh parliament but the welsh parliament has had a symbolic vote in favour. Only the lords has filibustered it out, Wales, Scotland, Jersey, IOM all voted for it
Hearing this has really annoyed me, I don't care about boats or frogface, I'd just like the right and dignity to die free of pain and suffering.
iirc fir the parliament act to be used there needs tobe another vote in tbe commons and there is no space in the timetable at the momentAs I understand it, there's an extra complication: for HOC to overrule HOL they need to vote on exactly the same legislation again, no ammendments, no compromises, not tweaks for clarity, and it didn't get through HOC that easily in the first place, so if any of the proposed ammendments are in fact sensible or any of those who voted in favour can be swayed that on such a big issue the Lords should not simply be bulldozered and more time should be spent thinking it wont get through.
If the government really wanted it blasted back through they could find space, but it wasn't a government bill in the first place. There are cabinet ministers who didn't want it. Ironically its the sort of leadership, clarity, and standing up for democracy that the PM could do with for his own career.
Don't get me wrong, the lord's have sometimes provided valuable scrutiny to bills going through. This is nothing but deliberate vandalism against something supported by a majority of the public. Time to clear house of these unelected scum bags
I support the idea of the bill, and am generally not keen on the bizarre HoL structure that we have. BUT as you say sometimes the HoL stops government from doing undesirable stuff, certainly its a sanity check. If this had been then blocking an issue we wanted to be opposed we would be saying "good on the lords". I do think the majority of the public support it but AFAIK none of the "mainstream" parties had it in their manifestos? But the public support it on the basis that "we agree with the conept, obviously there need to be safeguards and that the job of the HOC and HOL to work out the details on". 587 ammendments is clearly ridiculous, but what if one or two of them actually have merit?
I can't bring myself to call someone a scum bag simply because they have voted against or blocked an issue I feel strongly about. I despise the role of religion in our politics, but it's difficult to see why members of a second chamber should not be allowed to act on their personal convictions and moral compass on an issue like this. The protagonists of the Bill have perhaps made a mistake by assuming the answer was not to convince the opponents but rather simply to win over enough of the centre ground.
Still if it doesn't go through at least you have something to tell prospective parliamentary candidates you actually care about. I assume you have already spoken directly to your existing representatives to make your views known?
Conceed scumbag is a bit harsh, but their role is to scrutinise and debate for the benefit of the country. It's clear that those listed above have done exactly the opposite of that by deliberately running the bill out of time rather than working in good faith to make changes or improvements.
It is the intent that makes them scumbags in my mind
I think the point is the tactics. Its not been about persuading others, its not been about pointing out flaws in the bill. Its using deliberate wrecking tactics to frustrate the democratic wishes of the HOC, the majority of the HOL and the public. Its about putting your religious convictions above your duty to the public.
One further aspect is this means if the parliament act is actually used which seems likely then the HOL will have no chance to amend anything so if by some weird chance the amendments had merit ( and they do not) then it actually stops those amendments being debated
Its completely vile. This should mean the end of the HOL.
Oh and understand that the anti campaign is led, coordinated and funded by (mainly) american christian nationalist fundamentalist groups.
The protagonists of the Bill have perhaps made a mistake by assuming the answer was not to convince the opponents but rather simply to win over enough of the centre ground.
There is no changing the mind of those who oppose as they are (mainly) answering to their god not their constituents. If they were acting for their constituents then they would support the bill as the public is overwhelmingly in favour
This should mean the end of the HOL.
The leader of the opposition, Sir Keir Starmer, pledged in 2023 to replace the HoL with a fully elected Chamber.
AIUI, he's reformed it by adding even more un-elected peers. You'll be waiting a while 😀
I understand your point, but if they do it with something you agree with them on it seems less offensive! Then they are the last safeguard against a government doing something they scraped through the commons despite not having been in their manifesto. Its likely this bill does need little tweaks and adjustments to make good law, if it was already polished and had strong commons support there would be little point in the HOL time-wasting because it would get bounced back though under the parliament act.Conceed scumbag is a bit harsh, but their role is to scrutinise and debate for the benefit of the country. It's clear that those listed above have done exactly the opposite of that by deliberately running the bill out of time rather than working in good faith to make changes or improvements.
It is the intent that makes them scumbags in my mind
It is naive though because they are likely adding to the disband the lords argument. What we need to be careful about though - is making sure that there is still some proper due process for scrutiny separate from HOC.
Its likely this bill does need little tweaks and adjustments to make good law, if it was already polished and had strong commons support there would be little point in the HOL time-wasting because it would get bounced back though under the parliament act.
It is already polished and fine and needs no further tweeks and Falconer says he will make sure its returned under the parliament act
Its a desperate attempt to thwart the democratic will of the HOC and the voters. These are not rational people we are dealing with
There is no changing the mind of those who oppose as they are (mainly) answering to their god not their constituents.
This should be good enough grounds to have them banned from having any role in the process of passing any legislation. If your that irrational to prioritise a made up god figure over reality then I don’t want you involved in law making
There is no changing the mind of those who oppose as they are (mainly) answering to their god not their constituents. If they were acting for their constituents then they would support the bill as the public is overwhelmingly in favourThe protagonists of the Bill have perhaps made a mistake by assuming the answer was not to convince the opponents but rather simply to win over enough of the centre ground.
Well 128 of the ammendments come from Tanni Grey-Thompson who is not openly acting for god but is a vocal disability rights campaigner. Although lords don't have constituents, I suspect she sees her constituents as disabled people and that she is fighting their corner. Now I think she/they are "overreacting" to the Bill and it presents no threat to disabled people - but my view isn't that important there. If they can't convince TGT and other disability rights people that their concerns have been considered and addressed it feeds the religious crazies with an extra angle that they are protecting the vulnerable.
From my correspondence with MSPs and MPs on this topic there's nothing convinced me that they were voting to align with constituents - they seemed to be voting based on their hearts (for or against). I think the "well religious nutters will be nutters" angle is exactly the mistake they've made: if you can't convince the hard core nutters you need to convince their stakeholders - people who go to church, people who are religious but have a view rather than waiting to be told what to think. And if it really is American evangelists wagging the dog then get the mainstream media and politicians questioning that openly.
In this case they are not aligned with my views, but I would be equally as pissed if they were playing these undemocratic games with other items I didn't agree with.
I am angry with the tactics not the scrutiny as it is utterly bad faith
Well the church of Scotland has adopted a neutral stance ( I had a little part in that decision) and the vast majority of religious and disabled folk are in favour as are many disability groups. Grey Thompson is not putting in improvement amendments, she is putting in wrecking ones. she is not acting for disabled folk or she would be supporting it.
It really is those nasty american religious fundamentalists along with Soutar funding and driving the opposition and this info has been put out there masny times. The right wing media ignores this
Sad. But likely to get worse. The unintended consequence of courting support of the religiously motivated in politics will undoubtedly push this further away.
The second and third order effects of poorly thought out association can be dangerous and painful.
poly - see my answer on previous page
Well the church of Scotland has adopted a neutral stance ( I had a little part in that decision)
Although probably less relevance in E&W! That's exactly my point though - if you've managed to get CoS to be neutral, well done, but has anyone managed the same with the various denominations across england? especially those with Bishops in the HOL?
and the vast majority of religious and disabled folk are in favour as are many disability groups.
I see lots of claims like that - and they may be accurate or just anecdotal. But there are clearly some very vocal ones who aren't. My point is, if you want your bill to pass easily its not enough to simply get the democratic arrithmetic right, you need to deal with noisy objectors because every so often there noise will make someone else pause and say, "oh thats worrying, maybe this isn't well written".
Grey Thompson is not putting in improvement amendments, she is putting in wrecking ones. she is not acting for disabled folk or she would be supporting it.
Yeah thats exactly the problem - you (and presumably the Bill's supporters in HOC) have said "Tanni's wrong, we should just ignore her, if she really understood she would support it". I'm not saying Tanni is right, but somehow they don't seem to have engaged her to see if they could at least address some of the things she is concerned about. Now I don't know if she is fundamentally opposed to the concept in general, the things I've seen her say suggest not, or just concerned about the quality of the safeguards, especially for vulnerable people
It really is those nasty american religious fundamentalists along with Soutar funding and driving the opposition and this info has been put out there masny times.
Yes but they are failing to get the message to the right people. You know it. I am aware of american religious groups interfering in uk politics in general (I've never understood why). But for some reason this hasn't become a mainstream story - why are the media not anxious to address who's controlling our politics? They are happy to criticise Mandy and Andy for their links to dodgy Americans why are the scared to point our the craziness?
The right wing media ignores this
I don't think this is a simple left/right issue. That might be part of the problem - politicians like to think of everything through a lens which defines issues on that spectrum, but the population's views on assisted dying don't seem to follow those divides.
I'm not saying Tanni is right, but somehow they don't seem to have engaged her to see if they could at least address some of the things she is concerned about. Now I don't know if she is fundamentally opposed to the concept in general, the things I've seen her say suggest not, or just concerned about the quality of the safeguards, especially for vulnerable people
There has been numerous attempts to engage her. She is fundamentally opposed and has a closed mind. The problem is her objections are not based in reality. How do you combat lies with the truth?
My point is, if you want your bill to pass easily its not enough to simply get the democratic arrithmetic right, you need to deal with noisy objectors because every so often there noise will make someone else pause and say, "oh thats worrying, maybe this isn't well written"
We have been trying and trying hard. These folk are very well funded and very good at manipulation of the system. they have created 3 groups to get 3 responses in every part of the debate. they claim the three groups are separate but in actual fact they are controlled and funded by the same folk
Ebery time these noisy objectors make their lying claims there is a real effort to counter them made - but our resources are so limited in comparison and the way they have these 3 groups mean they get 3 voices in the press to our one. also the political supporters have played by the rules, the political opponents have not ( the labour ones did get slapped down by Starmer)
Its very hard to counter lies with the truth but the key is the overwhelming majority of the public including disabled folk are in favour
A problem which all of politics faces! Exactly when majority are in favour of has quite a bit of nuance, depending exactly what circumstances are considered.Its very hard to counter lies with the truth but the key is the overwhelming majority of the public including disabled folk are in favour
They do sometimes explore the questions about the rules https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Internal_AssistedDying_260109_w.pdf things get a bit less clear cut then (although there is still public support).
I'm not sure where you got the stats on the disabled people. There is a vocal group of opponents. Some of who clearly haven't read the proposed Bill.
But some of the lords objections (if you give them a favourable view that they are doing their duty to scrutinise law rather than just abuse their power) are about nitty gritty way beyond anyone asks the public - questions like how you make sure someone isn't coerced, how you make sure a person with limited communication is properly understood, should coroners routinely report/track these deaths to spot problems. Supporters of the bill have put forward 100 improvements at the lords, including Lord Falconer, its sponsor in the lords who put forward 35 amendments of his own. There may well be strong support for the idea, but is that a sign that the drafting is poor? if so does that make it too easy for the opponents? Lets not forget Scotland has had 3 attempts to get a bill that parliament would accept - despite general public support for the idea. The EHRC have expressed concern, not at the concept, but the process used to work out the rules/processes.
To be clear, I support the concept. I think there are stupid things in the draft, e.g. 6 months in the opinion of two drs, when docs don't really like giving definitive prognosis like that; the need for self administration, which may force you to act earlier; no ability to lodge in advance criteria if I have zero quality of life and am unable to communicate/no longer competent. Lack of any universal monitoring/reporting to know if the process is both working as intended and access being achieved fairly (including a requirement to record any request rejected for being >6 months or not terminal). That said, I think it would be better to have the law than not have it - it can be improved in the future, but I'm not in the Lords tasked with making good law.
I honestly think any party not including a solution in their manifesto next time round is an idiot - but whilst a quick bill might be the answer, a "Royal Commission" would be far better if slower.
I really wish you would you would stop using the argument that the majority of the public support it so it must be right. Populism doesnt always run the way you might like, and populist answers to difficult questions are not always good ones, see Brexit.
Well founded and fair laws , well presented for the win
wbo - its 70% plus. Its not a populist idea done by politicians, its politicians responding to the needs and wants of the population as they should do
https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/assisted-dying/public-opinion-on-assisted-dying/
Poly - we really do not need a royal commission. Its been thru parliament multiple times as you point out with the bill being improved each time, we have the experience of the many jurisdictions who have this humane measure to learn from, we have all the data we need.
Anyway it looks like the scots bill will go thru. I am doing a final bit of lobbying shortly
Every year its delayed thousands of people die miserable deaths, hundreds of folk will take their own lives alone and in dangerous circumstances, many folk will go to Switzerland
None of the objections the opponents are making have any basis in reality, particularly the idea that disabled folk will be forced to take it as disability is not a qualifying condition and no adverse effects on disabled folk have been seen anywhere where they have this humane measure - indeed the opposite is true that like all healthcare measures this will be harder for the disabled to access than the able bodied
On the 6 months to live - this was removed in the scots bill for precisely the reasons you suggest
Poly - we really do not need a royal commission. Its been thru parliament multiple times as you point out with the bill being improved each time, we have the experience of the many jurisdictions who have this humane measure to learn from, we have all the data we need.
Anyway it looks like the scots bill will go thru. I am doing a final bit of lobbying shortly
Every year its delayed thousands of people die miserable deaths, hundreds of folk will take their own lives alone and in dangerous circumstances, many folk will go to Switzerland
None of the objections the opponents are making have any basis in reality, particularly the idea that disabled folk will be forced to take it as disability is not a qualifying condition and no adverse effects on disabled folk have been seen anywhere where they have this humane measure - indeed the opposite is true that like all healthcare measures this will be harder for the disabled to access than the able bodied
On the 6 months to live - this was removed in the scots bill for precisely the reasons you suggest
Good luck.
I find it inhumane to humans that my dog has more compassionate treatment and a more dignified end, when in pain and with an untreatable cancer, than I would be allowed. All I want is equality with my dog.
Poly - we really do not need a royal commission. Its been thru parliament multiple times as you point out with the bill being improved each time, we have the experience of the many jurisdictions who have this humane measure to learn from, we have all the data we need.
Anyway it looks like the scots bill will go thru. I am doing a final bit of lobbying shortly
Every year its delayed thousands of people die miserable deaths, hundreds of folk will take their own lives alone and in dangerous circumstances, many folk will go to Switzerland
None of the objections the opponents are making have any basis in reality, particularly the idea that disabled folk will be forced to take it as disability is not a qualifying condition and no adverse effects on disabled folk have been seen anywhere where they have this humane measure - indeed the opposite is true that like all healthcare measures this will be harder for the disabled to access than the able bodied
On the 6 months to live - this was removed in the scots bill for precisely the reasons you suggest
Good luck.
I find it inhumane to humans that my dog has more compassionate treatment and a more dignified end, when in pain and with an untreatable cancer, than I would be allowed. All I want is equality with my dog.
I am s supporter of assisted dieing having watched my FiL die just before Christmas.
I am conflicted slightly by my current situation. (This is possibly just a vent to allow me to order my thinking so please feel free to stop reading). My father was a bright intelligent man (and to an extent so am I, it's the genetics that concern me). He would complete the Times cryptic in the morning, teach maths all day then fix stuff outside that. So, bright and capable. He hated the thought of not being independent and was stating this until about 5years ago.
Currently dementia has hit hard. He can't remember where the washing basket is, I've put stickers over most of the buttons on his tv remote, he calls everyday with a new issue and when I visit, every second day, he does struggle to remember my name (every visit is like the archers where no sentence doesn't contain the person's name).
He supported assisted dieing years ago and wanted to "go" before being incapable. But now he's incapable of that reasoned thought he had before. So much so that he won't go to the doctor now and when he did last year the doctor wouldn't agree to starting a dementia diagnosis without his say so. Which I argued he wasn't capable of giving. Which would obviously preclude him from assisted dieing, which condemns him to degeneration to the stage that,.what, he's ends up effectively in a walking vegetative state?
Man it's all a bit shit.
Dementia and other progressive diseases are a tricky issue. In the various UK bills a tight criteria of " terminal illness, limited time to live, of sound mind" or some similar variant is used. There is no mechanism for giving advanced directives and they are problematic anyway because if you give an advanced directive ultimately someone else must make a decision that the conditions for that advanced directive have been met.
some systems use a definition of " intolerable suffering" which is clearly much wider and also allow advanced directives.
Given the difficulty of getting this thru our parliaments on a tight definition with very strict limits then using a wider definition and / or allowing advanced directives would make it very unlikely we could actually get a law through
Ultimately given the huge limitations of our psuedo democracy and the way unelected peers and religious leaders are allowed to interfere then the tight definition has to be the best we can do.
Personally I have no issue with the looser definitions used elsewhere but the use of advance directives I do find problematic.
Onehundred - what you can do in that situation is act as his advocate. In Scotland the law is clearer but when deciding to refuse treatment the previous known wishes of that person must be used as a guide. Its easier if you have a POA but even 2ithout you can advocate for his wishes so if he becomes unwell you can argue for non treatment. Pneumonia - the old mans friend etc
Anyway it looks like the scots bill will go thru. I am doing a final bit of lobbying shortly
Fingers crossed and I hope it does. Good luck with the lobbying.
F-in-L had an unpleasant death a few years ago. Allowing more compassion and dignity to a family pet than a human being is wrong in my view.
Mentioned earlier, but the elephant in the room I've not spoken to my parents about is death: I know from chats over the years how my dad felt about end of life then (wanting control of his own destiny), but not had a proper chat since. Definitely something to do discuss sooner than later - the assisted dying bill simply being discussed in media provides an opportunity to do so.
Poly - we really do not need a royal commission. Its been thru parliament multiple times as you point out with the bill being improved each time, we have the experience of the many jurisdictions who have this humane measure to learn from, we have all the data we need.
But you then go on to say things like:
On the 6 months to live - this was removed in the scots bill for precisely the reasons you suggest
some systems use a definition of " intolerable suffering" which is clearly much wider and also allow advanced directives.
Ultimately given the huge limitations of our psuedo democracy and the way unelected peers and religious leaders are allowed to interfere then the tight definition has to be the best we can do.
In Scotland the law is clearer
so, whilst I support the idea, and accept that some law is possibly better than no law, I’d rather have a well written law and think perhaps a royal commission would have been a better way to achieve that than parliamentary committees. The inclusion of judicial involvement without input from the courts on capacity was a huge screw up that would likely not have happened had it been more openly drafted rather than trying to pre-empt objections. That’s now been remove but then leaves the objectors with the argument that the bill is so fundamentally different from that which was originally presented.
in my discussions with one of my MSPs about this (and the only one who explicitly said they supported assisted dying) an interesting point was made - so many promises have been made that this is not the thin end of the wedge that it might be really hard to get future amendments to broaden the scope through. She indicated she had voted against the previous bill because the scope was too narrow rather than because of the principle.
Now I don’t know if the outcome of a Royal Commission being turned into law is any more likely to pass cleanly through the lords but it feels like it might. If I was in the lords (the costume wouldn’t suit me!) I would be asking for some sort of review mechanism to understand if it was working or needed improvements or clarifications etc. That would mean we could still help some people now, but hopefully make better law in the future. It’s possible there could be undesired deaths now - but if the lords don’t realise that many of the laws they pass have potential unintended deaths then they really shouldn’t be there.
Now I don’t know if the outcome of a Royal Commission being turned into law is any more likely to pass cleanly through the lords but it feels like it might.
Isn't that the whole point?
Certain Lords aren't doing their job as they should and they won't allow it "to pass cleanly through the lords." It wouldn't matter what you put in Assisted Dying legislation, they'd filibuster it out of time.
Now I don’t know if the outcome of a Royal Commission being turned into law is any more likely to pass cleanly through the lords but it feels like it might.
Isn't that the whole point?
Certain Lords aren't doing their job as they should and they won't allow it "to pass cleanly through the lords." It wouldn't matter what you put in Assisted Dying legislation, they'd filibuster it out of time.
I'm sure they would say they are doing exactly what the lords is supposed to do and challenging poor legislation - if the legislation was cleanly drafted and had genuinely reached consensus on the tricky points, then the best the Lords could do is delay it because the Commons would use the Parliament Act to bounce it through anyway. It may be that if that inevitability was clear the Lords wouldn't even fight it (although I assume some would try). The majority of the ammendments are from small group of peers who TJ rightly pointed out are doing anything to block it, but there's a much larger group with fewer ammendments including Lord Falconer who is its sponsor trying to get it voted through! When the guy arguing for the bill is making dozens of ammendments you have to wonder whether the commons committee did a thorough enough job.
Lords could do is delay it because the Commons would use the Parliament Act to bounce it through anyway.
The problem is that it's not a government bill. Parliament Act is used to push through bills promised in the King's speech.
Anyway, there is no form of bill that a small group of Lords won't place hundreds of fresh objections to. No length of sitting time that results in them allowing the bill to pass. No amendments that could satisfy them. So they'll have to be sidelined and procedure changed to get this through.