Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Murphy Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Murphy (CB)]

My Lords, I have often spoken in support of this and in most debates in this House on every Bill to introduce assisted dying in England and Wales since the Joffe Bill in 2005, and I will continue to support it. I hope that this Bill will make it through. For me, the principles are guided by support for the importance of respecting the autonomy of mentally competent people to make their own decisions about their lives, and that, as a matter of compassion, people should be assisted to end their lives when terminal illness means they no longer want to contemplate further existence or tolerate the possibility of a difficult death.

As we have heard, there are numerous jurisdictions that have implemented legislation on this based on the Oregon model, which is a very successful one and is tried and tested. Other jurisdictions have gone for another model, which I would broadly call the Canada model—a rather wider scheme, which I would have supported strongly. The Oregon model is the one we have before us, albeit modified, and that is what we need to get right and through Parliament; it is the one that has been approved by the Commons.

We know from good peer-reviewed research that there are no risks for the vulnerable. They are largely a rallying point for the fundamentally opposed, and that is all. There is no evidence of any undue influence impacting on the decision. The process can be part of good palliative care services and in many places where this model has been taken up palliative care services have improved. It makes people focus more on the realities of care of the dying. Yes, it would be great to see better palliative care—I would support that and always have—but not at the expense of trying to introduce another legitimate arm to it, which is part of good palliative care.

My problem with this Bill is what the Commons has done to it. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, it is now hedged around with so many so-called safeguards that have been inserted that it might prove to be unwieldy if not unworkable. The notion that a psychiatrist should be called in to confirm capacity in some cases is probably unnecessary. All doctors are trained to assess capacity; they have to be for testamentary capacity. Of course, I love dearly psychiatrists—after all, I am one—but I think it is unlikely that my colleagues will want to be involved, except in very exceptional and unusual circumstances. Frankly, there is too much bureaucracy and oversight in this Bill. The experience of other countries suggests that the less bureaucratic the process, the better the experience for patients.

The Bill is very narrow in its criteria for eligibility. I am content to go through with this Bill as it is, but I am one who would like to see in the future an expansion of eligibility criteria to support people with irremediable diagnoses, such as Tony Nicklinson and other people with locked-in syndrome. My 100-year old mother decided to starve herself to death when her pain was excessive. She had very good palliative care support and a brilliant GP, but those three weeks in which she was determined to die—she was fully mentally competent—were the worst three weeks of my life. Nevertheless, I want to see this Bill go through, and hope it becomes legislation as soon as possible.

I am sympathetic to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but I am very worried that it would create further problems for us. Let us try to get this Bill through, and then at least we can make some progress and respect the wishes of the Commons.