This article was published by Disability News Service on April 30, 2026.
Disabled campaigners have warned that pressure to push through legislation to allow assisted suicide is sure to continue, even though the “dangerous” and deeply-flawed terminally ill adults (end of life) bill has run out of parliamentary time.
Those supporting the bill in the House of Lords repeatedly lashed out at disabled campaigners and allies who they blamed for blocking the bill, when it was debated for the final time in the House of Lords on Friday.
Because the current parliamentary session ended yesterday (Wednesday), the bill can now not become law, although it is highly likely to be brought back before parliament in the next session, which begins next month.
Disabled peers and others who suggested multiple amendments aimed at fixing the legislation’s many flaws have faced months of attacks in the Lords and the media accusing them of trying to block the legislation by “filibustering”.
Those attacks continued in a bad-tempered final debate on Friday, with the bill’s sponsor in the Lords, Labour’s Lord Falconer, and pro-legalisation colleagues, repeatedly attacking a “small minority” of peers who they accused of blocking the bill.
Lord Falconer said he was “despondent” that the bill had failed due to “procedural wrangling”, and said the Lords had “let down” terminally-ill people, while he later described the day’s debate as “horrible” and suggested opponents were responsible for that.
The disabled crossbench peer Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson, one of the peers who has been targeted by Lord Falconer for her attempts to address flaws in the bill, told fellow peers that many of the amendments she had put forward had been suggested by disability organisations, including disabled people’s organisations, and “disabled individuals who are very worried about the reality of the bill”.
She said: “This bill has failed because there are too many gaps in it.”
And she said the fact that Lord Falconer had himself tabled 76 amendments “shows that there is not the confidence that this bill is safe”.
She said: “We have heard much debate today about the damage to [the House of Lords], but I have had thousands of emails to thank us for what we are doing here to unpack the danger that is in the bill.
“I am very clear on my role. It has not been pleasant to sit here and be targeted by so many people who say that we are doing a bad job, but our job is to protect everyone in British society, and this bill does not do that.”
Baroness [Jane] Campbell, another disabled crossbench peer who has been accused of blocking the legislation, said the number of peers who had taken part in debates on the bill “reflects deep and genuine concerns shared by NHS doctors, human rights bodies and disability organisations about the risks this legislation may pose to the most vulnerable”.
She said: “I have long supported autonomy for disabled people, but autonomy without protection is not freedom – it is risk.
“When the outcome is irreversible, that risk must be treated with the utmost seriousness.”
She said that organisations with concerns about the bill’s safety included the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, disability organisations, and the human rights organisation Liberty.
Baroness Campbell added: “Disabled people who have contacted me are very clear: this bill frightens them, and they want me to explain to your lordships why it is dangerous for them.
“They fear unequal access to care shaping their choices, subtle coercion that cannot be easily detected, error in prognosis, persistent assumptions about the value of their lives and a system already under strain being asked to deliver decisions of the utmost gravity.”
And she said it was clear that more work was needed before the bill could be considered safe.
She said: “If the bill is to proceed, it must clearly demonstrate that it can protect those in highly vulnerable situations while respecting the wishes of those it is intended to serve.
“At present, it does not meet that test.”
Not Dead Yet UK, the campaigning organisation that fights attempts to legalise assisted suicide, and which was founded by Baroness Campbell, welcomed the “pause” in the continuing push for legalisation, but warned that the bill would return to parliament.
Phil Friend, convenor of Not Dead Yet UK, said he and fellow campaigners were grateful to the peers who had scrutinised the bill so thoroughly and “found some very serious problems”.
He said: “Many of them were publicly labelled as enemies of democracy – denounced in rallies, criticised in open letters, their constitutional role dismissed as deliberate obstruction.
“Baroness Jane Campbell, Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, Baroness Ilora Finlay and others did their jobs.
“They took disabled people’s concerns seriously. They deserve our thanks, not our condemnation.
“And we, as disabled people, find it abhorrent that individuals were personally attacked simply for listening to us.”
Friend said the pressure to change the law “will not stop”.
He said: “We knew this was always going to be a long campaign. That hasn’t changed.
“We go into the next battle with stronger networks, a developing strategy, and a growing community of disabled people and allies who understand what is at stake.”
Picture: Members of NDY UK and parliamentary allies in March last year, including Baroness Grey-Thompson (front row, second from right)
No comments:
Post a Comment