Chaos in Commons as effort to stop ‘euthanaisa by the back door’ fails

A CROSS-PARTY attempt by British MPs intended to prevent the introduction of “euthanasia by the back door” failed last night amid chaotic scenes in the House of Commons.

An amendment to the Mental Capacity Bill tabled by former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith was finally defeated by 297 votes to 203, despite a revolt by 34 Labour MPs, who backed the move against whip.

The Government only secured victory after it emerged in the dying moments of the debate that the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, had agreed to strengthen the legislation to address the critics' concerns.

It was left to a Labour backbencher, Kevin McNamara, to disclose that Lord Falconer had written to the Catholic Archbishop of Cardiff, promising to amend the Bill in the Lords.

The hapless Constitutional Affairs Minister David Lammy had to fend off a barrage of demands for an explanation by angry MPs, confused over what the Government had promised.

Amid uproar in the House, Mr Lammy insisted that the assurances given by the Lord Chancellor would "fully meet the concerns" of the Bill's critics.

Concerns have centred on the section of the Bill giving legal force to so-called "living wills" which enable people to issue instructions that treatment should be withheld if they become severely incapacitated.

It would enable patients to give someone else the power of attorney to make decisions on their behalf and doctors would have to apply for a court order if they wished to challenge a decision.

Ministers have insisted that it would not change the law on assisted suicide, but critics argue that it could open the door to "killing by omission" through the withdrawal of treatment.

Mr Lammy told MPs that Lord Falconer had agreed to make explicit in the Bill that it would not authorise any decision where the motive was to kill.

Labour rebel Andrew Mackinlay said of the vote: "If there had been a free vote, the amendment would have been passed."

Mr Duncan Smith said his proposal would have ruled unlawful any withdrawal of treatment designed to end a person's life unless continuing treatment would be "unreasonably burdensome" to the patient.