Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of Living and Dying Well. While my view on this subject has been publicly expressed, today is about the contents of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill and the implications for wider society with all its pressures and tensions.

We should therefore learn from other jurisdictions. Just as good laws are not made from hard cases, soundbites do not make watertight Bills. We have heard that the Bill is “the safest in the world”. However, in Committee in another place, judges were replaced with a panel, in a contradictory term called “judge-plus”. This change was made after the Ministry of Justice and senior judges raised concerns about the impact on courts. The Royal College of Psychiatrists says that the suggested model is not even possible. The EHRC stated that the impact assessment in another place was published too late for it to be properly utilised to strengthen the Bill. The Bill gives the Secretary of State extensive powers. The Henry VIII clauses allow statutory instruments to be endlessly rewritten.

Specifically, Clause 5(4) requires

“the provision of adjustments for language and literacy barriers”,

but there is no requirement for modified information for those with learning disabilities or additional needs. Additionally, the doctor only has to “ascertain” that the person has been coerced. But how? It is not in the Bill. Clause 25(8) allows the co-ordinating doctor to assist the person

“to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.”

This blurs the line between assisted dying and euthanasia.

At a recent meeting with those who provide voluntary assisted dying in Australia, claims were made that all deaths were peaceful. But there are no requirements to report adverse events, and no impartial oversight. In Oregon, the presence or absence of complications was left unrecorded in 72% of deaths. The Bill does not sufficiently outline protocols for recording or dealing with complications.

The “approved substances” mentioned in Clauses 27 and 37 do not explain how a drug will be approved. In Oregon, patients were given experimental drugs, with one treatment turning out to be

“too harsh, burning patients’ mouths and throats, causing some to scream in pain”.

Over 27 years, half the patients in Oregon took between 53 minutes and 137 hours to die. If the Bill is to bring compassion and calm at the end of life, how can this be ensured when we do not know what lethal drugs will be given?

Having no requirement in the Bill for a coroner’s report could lead to a lack of proper oversight. There are cases where it is revealed post-mortem that the patient did not have a terminal illness. As the Bill stands, we would never find out. If there is nothing to fear from the Bill, there is nothing to fear from accurate reporting.

Claims have been made that once on the statute books, the law cannot be expanded. Just as the Bill amends the Suicide Act 1961, fundamentally, our role is to scrutinise and improve legislation. Parliament can do anything, but it cannot bind its successor. I am constantly told that there has been no expansion in jurisdictions such as Oregon. But 2020 saw the removal of the 15-day waiting period between requesting assisted dying and administering it, and in 2023 the residency requirement was removed and the definition of “terminal” expanded by interpretation. In Victoria, Australia, a five-year review in February proposed a plethora of “improvements”, which lead to substantial expansion.

Our role, and what we must endeavour to do, is to weigh up the evidence, safeguard the vulnerable and avoid wrongful death.