Eight peers of the House of Lords with nursing and medical backgrounds are urging MPs to continue to support urgent law reform on assisted dying after the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill failed to reach a vote in the House of Lords before the last parliamentary session ended.
In an open letter published by The BMJ today, Baroness Clare Gerada and colleagues express their dismay and warn that failing to pass this legislation – and peers' lack of opportunity to vote on the Bill – has put many more dying people and their families at risk, and damaged public trust in parliament.
"The onus is now on you, as MPs, to ensure parliament is able to come to a decision on this matter," they write.
This Bill draws on years of proven best practice from overseas, demonstrating that establishing a legal framework for end-of-life choice is far preferable to the current status quo, they explain. Key elements of the Bill align with existing best practices for end-of-life decision making, including assessing capacity, informed consent, and safeguards against coercion, they say.
It is wrong to suggest healthcare professionals cannot be trusted to support people in making these life choices, as this work is part of their daily practice, they argue, highlighting that many of the amendments proposed by peers ignored these parallels and would have made the assisted dying process less safe and clear for both patients and healthcare providers.
And they point out that support for a change in the law is growing among medical and nursing professionals, and every major medical organisation has dropped its opposition to assisted dying in favour of neutrality, enabling constructive engagement in the debate.
The Bill itself underwent over 100 hours of scrutiny in the Commons, benefiting from expert input from a range of medical stakeholders, they write, and they welcome the adoption of key changes sought by the British Medical Association, including conscience protections for doctors, a clear opt-in model, and the rejection of a ban on doctors using their professional judgment when discussing assisted dying with eligible adults.
The authors conclude that their role as peers is to listen to patients and the public, consider expert evidence, and offer constructive scrutiny based on their unique expertise.
Despite their disappointment, they say the debate must continue until parliament reaches a decision, urging the Commons to assert its primacy to enable them to do their jobs effectively and restore public trust.
The letter is authored by Baroness Clare Gerada, Lord Naren Patel, Baroness Mary Watkins, Lord John Alderdice, Baroness Anne Marie Rafferty, Baroness Elaine Murphy, Lord Robert Winston, and Baroness Geeta Nargund.
