The Times: Letters 5th January 2023
END-OF-LIFE REVIEW
Sir, Unlike Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (Thunderer, Jan 2), I believe that the Commons health and social care committee is asking the right foundation question as the first stage in its review of the law relating to assisted dying. Setting out the law as it is and asking for broad approval or disapproval is exactly what one should expect of a committee taking its responsibility seriously and objectively. As he knows, the “approve” or “disapprove” question prevents nobody from stating their views about whether changes should be made in the law. He refers to “successive private member’s bills successfully promoted in the House of Lords”. This involves a very selective use of language. One such bill was rejected at second reading — I moved the rejection. Generally, the Lords does not vote against second reading; on other occasions bills were given an unopposed second reading but none ever has come anywhere close to becoming law.
Lord Carlile of Berriew KC
House of Lords
Sir, Lord Brown’s simplification of the case for assisted dying is unhelpful when he talks of agreed safeguards that allow terminally ill people to be helped in ending their lives. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (letter, Jan 2) rightly talks of subtle, perhaps unconscious, coercion that leads to a person feeling a burden on the family. It is impossible to list safeguards against sighs, glances and other signals that lead to a person feeling unwanted. We need to make ours a more caring society in which those nearing the end of their lives through illness, age or infirmity are made to feel life is still worth living.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
Member, joint parliamentary committee for human rights
