Six hundred and eighty-eight.<\/p>\n
That is the number of amendments that just seven members of Britain\u2019s House of Lords proposed to a bill that was meant to legalize assisted dying<\/a> for the terminally ill.<\/p>\n So many amendments were lodged \u2014 more than 1,280 in total \u2014 that the bill failed on Friday, in a rare example of the Lords, Parliament\u2019s unelected second chamber, blocking a bill approved by the House of Commons.<\/p>\n Critics say that the episode could threaten<\/a> the credibility of an institution that much of the British public already considers bloated<\/a> and undemocratic, according to opinion polls. Surveys<\/a> also show that a consistent majority of Britons think assisted dying should be allowed in cases where someone is dying from an incurable illness.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is a giant filibuster,\u201d said Charles Falconer, a former Labour Party minister and a leading proponent of the bill in the Lords. It is \u201cabsolutely infuriating,\u201d he added. \u201cIf all the Lords does is talk and come to no conclusions, which is what\u2019s happening here, then what\u2019s the point of the Lords?\u201d<\/p>\n The House of Commons voted in a landmark decision in 2024<\/a> to allow assisted dying for some terminally ill, mentally competent adults.<\/p>\n The bill, which was scrutinized and amended in the months after, included strict conditions. Only people who are over 18, and who have been given fewer than six months to live, would be eligible. Two doctors and a specialist panel would have to approve the decision, and patients would have to administer the lethal substance themselves.<\/p>\n Opponents in the Lords argued that the bill was poorly drafted and did not contain enough safeguards to protect vulnerable people from possibly being pressured into an assisted death. They pointed to reservations expressed by some medical organizations, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists<\/a>, the Royal College of Physicians<\/a> and the Royal College of Pathologists<\/a>. Proposing changes is their job, they say.<\/p>\n With its ornate, gilded chamber and archaic rules, the House of Lords scrutinizes, amends and often improves bills. But under Britain\u2019s unwritten constitutional arrangements, it generally does not veto legislation and instead bows to the will of the country\u2019s 650 elected members of the House of Commons.<\/p>\n The bill\u2019s opponents know that the parliamentary gridlock has prompted questions about the role of the Lords. \u201cI think that\u2019s meant to encourage us to change our minds,\u201d said Tanni Grey-Thompson, a Paralympic gold medalist, disability rights campaigner and one of the top seven amenders to the bill in the Lords, who have proposed more than half of the total amendments between them. \u201cAnd it\u2019s not working.\u201d<\/p>\n She conceded that some amendments \u2014 including one she had proposed requiring that anyone seeking an assisted death provide \u201ca negative pregnancy test\u201d<\/a> \u2014 could have been better drafted. Critics have pointed out that this would not be relevant for men, older women or people who can\u2019t have children, but she said she wanted to address how to support terminally ill pregnant women.<\/p>\n Ms. Grey-Thompson, who proposed 130 amendments to the bill, rejected accusations of filibustering. She said that the bill leaves out vital detail and said she was determined to prevent disabled people being pressured into ending their lives. Coercion could, she said, be \u201cvery gentle\u201d for disabled people who \u201care quite often made to feel they have no value to society anyway.\u201d<\/p>\n Other opponents to the bill included those who believe palliative care should be improved to ensure terminally ill people have a real choice, and those who oppose assisted dying for religious reasons. A number of the 26 Church of England bishops who have an automatic right<\/a> to sit in the House of Lords expressed reservations<\/a>.<\/p>\n Humanists U.K., a group that supported the legislation and tracked its progress, said the impasse reflected the fact that procedures in the Lords allowed a small number of members \u201cwho are vehemently opposed to the bill to block its passage.\u201d<\/p>\n Some experts believe that the problems arose because the legislation was drafted not by the government but by a lawmaker in the Commons, Kim Leadbeater, who won a ballot for nongovernment legislators \u2014 known as backbenchers \u2014 to propose what is known as a Private Members\u2019 Bill on a topic of their choosing. These lawmakers do not have the power to set up inquiries to consult the general public about potential changes of the law, which could have helped bolster the case for the bill.<\/p>\n By contrast, there was wide consultation on similar legislation passed in Jersey, an island in the English Channel that makes its own laws, said Rebecca McKee, a senior researcher at the Institute for Government, a London-based think tank.<\/p>\n Assisted dying was discussed by a \u201ccitizens jury\u201d there before a bill went to Jersey\u2019s legislators who \u201chad a much better idea of what the public wanted\u201d in terms of safeguards and trade-offs, Ms. McKee said. There was nothing similar before the legislation covering England and Wales went to Parliament, Ms. McKee added, and \u201cnot being a government bill, it didn\u2019t have the pre-legislative legwork that I think something like this does need.\u201d<\/p>\n A key question is what happens now the bill has failed.<\/p>\n It could be forced through under a procedure allowing the Commons \u2014 by voting a second time \u2014 to overrule the Lords. To do that the legislation could be reintroduced as a Private Members\u2019 Bill in the next session. However, for that to happen, another lawmaker who supports assisted dying would have to come close to the top of the next ballot to propose a second Private Members\u2019 Bill on the matter \u2014 by no means guaranteed.<\/p>\n