Why assisted dying reform was blocked in the Lords

They showed disrespect for the will of elected MPs who decided, following lengthy debate, that now is the time to change the law.

They showed contempt for the wishes of the great majority of the electorate who want reform, with poll after poll recording strong support from people of all stripes across the political spectrum. And their wrecking tactics were a slap in the face for all those who will continue to suffer under the current legal shambles.

The bill’s termination was contrived through the tabling of an unprecedented 1,300 amendments which opponents knew couldn’t possibly be debated in the time available. Just seven opponents were responsible for 612 of them,

Humanists have campaigned for change for nearly 100 years.

It touches on so much that we value about life in the here and now: Personal autonomy, choice over our bodies, and showing compassion for those who are suffering.

Compassion of course includes providing palliative care. But there are many instances where even the best palliative care is of no avail, and we wouldn’t let an animal die in the agony some humans are forced to endure.

We are up against religious fundamentalists who believe suffering is God’s will, and that only God can decide when we depart this mortal coil.

Baroness Therese Coffey, who tabled 94 amendments, is just one example. A practising Catholic who served under Truss and Johnson, she has made no secret that her religious beliefs colour her politics, from abortion to gay marriage.

She was rewarded with a peerage after losing her seat at the 2024 election. Her amendment 15 would have barred anyone who had been on holiday in the previous 12 months, an exclusion notable for its cruel implications.

There are those who will still maintain that the bill wasn’t perfect and that the Lords were only doing their job. It’s a specious argument.

No bill will ever be ‘perfect’ enough for people who are totally opposed in principle.

Its stringent measures provided safeguards as good or better than those in any of the jurisdictions which now benefit from such laws, including Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Spain and many more.

Both the Lords and our end of life laws are outdated, and this grotesque affront to democracy spurs efforts to reform both.

• Paul Kaufman is chair of the East London Humanists.