Dame Esther Rantzen accuses peers of 'blatant sabotage' of assisted dying bill

Key Concepts

• Assisted Dying: The practice of intentionally assisting a person in ending their life, typically at their voluntary and informed request, due to an incurable illness causing unbearable suffering.
• Parliament Act: A UK law allowing the House of Commons to override the House of Lords in certain circumstances, primarily concerning legislation.
• Dignitas: A Swiss organization providing assisted suicide services to individuals meeting specific criteria.
• Private Member’s Bill: A public bill introduced into Parliament by a Member of Parliament who is not a government minister.
• Filibustering: The practice of obstructing proceedings by prolonged speechmaking, often used to delay or prevent a vote.
• Crown Dependencies: Territories that are self-governing possessions of the Crown, not part of the United Kingdom itself (e.g., Isle of Man, Jersey).
• Palliative Care: Specialized medical care for people living with a serious illness, focused on providing relief from the symptoms and stress of the illness.

The Blocked Assisted Dying Bill & Call for Change

The interview centers on the recent setback to a private member’s bill proposing a change to UK law regarding assisted dying, and the passionate advocacy of Dave Master, a terminally ill individual, for its passage. The core issue is the perceived sabotage of the bill by a small group of peers in the House of Lords through the submission of 1,200 amendments, effectively blocking its progress. Master frames this as a deliberate attempt to prevent a democratic outcome.

The Current Legal Situation & Personal Impact

Currently, UK law does not permit assisted dying. While suicide is not criminalized, assisting someone to end their life is. This creates a paradoxical situation where families who support a loved one’s wish for a peaceful death could face investigation for murder. Master highlights the personal anguish this causes, stating, “if I do [tell my family when I’m going to Dignitas], under the current criminal law, they will be investigated by the police suspected of murdering me, which is the last thing they need when they’re facing bereavement anyway.” He emphasizes that the proposed law wouldn’t shorten life, but shorten the dying process, allowing for a dignified and pain-free end. He personally utilizes the services of Dignitas in Switzerland, but laments the fact that he must travel alone, separated from his family, to access this option. He recounts receiving heartbreaking emails from families whose loved ones took their own lives in traumatic ways, deaths that could have been avoided with legal assisted dying provisions.

Government Approach & Parliamentary Process

The interview addresses the government’s relatively “hands-off” approach to the bill, initiated as a private member’s bill under Kim Leadbeater. Master defends the government’s position, explaining that Sikir Starmer, as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), understood the flaws in the current law and supported change, but feared that including it in the Labour manifesto would politicize the issue. He praises the dedication of Kim Leadbeater and Charles Falconer in navigating the bill through Parliament, securing extra time and witnesses during the committee stage. However, he argues that the sheer number of amendments (1,200) submitted by opposing peers was a deliberate tactic to obstruct progress, noting that at a rate of three amendments discussed per day, it would take years to resolve. He asserts that these amendments weren’t genuine attempts to improve the bill, but rather “blocking devices” and “filibustering.”

Data & Public Opinion

Master points to consistent public opinion surveys demonstrating majority support for a change in the law. He states, “Every survey shows this. A majority of the public understand the cruelty… of the current criminal law.” He contrasts this with the situation 15 years ago, when a Commons vote on assisted dying resulted in a majority against it, indicating a shift in public sentiment. The most recent Commons vote, while passing the third reading, was only by a margin of 23 votes, highlighting the sensitivity and divisiveness of the issue.

Critique of the House of Lords & Potential Solutions

A central argument is that the House of Lords is “not fit for purpose” due to its ability to block legislation supported by the elected House of Commons and the public. Master attributes the opposition to the bill to the “religious beliefs” of some peers, which they seek to impose on others. He calls for a change in the parliamentary process to prevent unelected peers from repeatedly obstructing the democratic will.

He suggests two potential solutions: invoking the Parliament Act (a rarely used mechanism to override the Lords) or, more radically, abolishing the House of Lords altogether. He emphasizes the need for the public to “rise up and make their voices heard” to pressure Parliament to act.

Starmer’s Role & Dignitas Access

Master defends Keir Starmer’s approach, stating that the Labour leader fulfilled his promise to ensure the bill received proper debate time in the Commons. He recounts a conversation with Starmer where the leader explained his rationale for keeping the issue out of the manifesto to avoid politicization. Master acknowledges Starmer’s personal understanding of the issue, stemming from his experience as DPP witnessing the suffering caused by the current law.

He also addresses the limitations of accessing assisted dying through Dignitas, noting that it is only available to those who can afford the travel and associated costs, creating an inequitable system. He argues that assisted dying should be accessible to anyone who needs it, regardless of their financial situation.

Concluding Remarks & Call to Action

Master concludes by expressing his sadness at the bill’s likely failure and the despair it will cause to those in similar situations. He emphasizes the importance of sharing personal stories to influence politicians and advocates for a swift change in the law to allow individuals to choose a pain-free and dignified death, surrounded by loved ones. He reiterates that the goal is not to shorten life, but to shorten the dying process. The interview ends with a reminder of resources for those affected by the issues discussed, including the Samaritans.

Quote: “How can you be so cruel, so inhumane, and so undemocratic?” – Dave Master, addressing the House of Lords.