Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Baroness O'Loan and Baroness Hollins

Committee stage
Friday 6th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 87, which details the exclusion of those with diagnosed eating disorders from accessing assisted dying, because I consider this a tricky area deserving of very careful debate. There are serious and specific risks that the Bill poses to people with anorexia nervosa and other eating disorders—conditions with the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric illness, but which are not terminal illnesses. They are complex fluctuating disorders, characterised by impaired insight and a distorted relationship with food, weight and how people view themselves.

Written and oral briefings that we have received make it clear that this is not just a theoretical concern. The Complex Life and Death Decisions group briefing on eating disorders documented how, in jurisdictions with assisted dying laws, eating disorders have been redefined as terminal once patients stop eating and drinking. This is despite the availability of effective evidence-based treatments and well-documented cases of recovery, even after decades of illness. A systematic review published last year in Frontiers in Psychiatry identified at least 60 individuals with eating disorders who died by assisted death in Oregon, Colorado and California—jurisdictions where, as in this Bill, assisted dying is restricted to terminal conditions. A third of those who died were in their teens or 20s, and all were women.

Cases such as this demonstrate the danger of conflating treatment refusal with terminal illness, and of mistaking the voice of a life-threatening psychiatric disorder for a wish to die. Starvation affects the brain in profound ways, including causing rigidity of thinking and allowing the illness itself to dominate choices. This can happen even to the point where perceived thinness is valued over life.

Yet people with anorexia can appear highly articulate and lucid, which can mask these deeper impairments and make capacity assessments unreliable. Many are judged to have capacity in other areas of life even while their decision-making around food, weight and choosing self-preservation is seriously distorted by the disorder. Someone may seem capable of making an end-of-life decision while simultaneously lacking capacity for the very decisions that would keep them alive. We need to acknowledge this complexity and proceed with the utmost care, recognising that these individuals are among those most at risk under the Bill.

Those who refuse to eat or drink because of mental illness must also be excluded from the Bill’s scope so that we can properly safeguard them and ensure that they receive the treatment and support that they need to recover. Amendment 87A would offer a valuable clarification, ensuring that this would apply regardless of whether the refusal of food or drink is voluntary or arises from a mental disorder. This would prevent any ambiguity that could otherwise allow conditions such as catatonia or other serious mental illnesses to be misclassified as terminal under the Bill. It would provide further safeguards for people with mental disorders.

There are mental-health conditions where life-threatening physical complications can occur without the restriction of food and drink. Amendments 90, 92 and 103 also cover this key area and would ensure that assisted dying is limited to people who are genuinely terminally ill due to disease progression and not because they choose to refuse care, food, fluids or treatment. A person cannot be considered terminally ill if their life-threatening condition arises from the secondary effects of mental illness.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, the issues raised in this group are extensive and a matter for great concern. Refusing food and hydration is a sure way to die, as, in many cases, is refusing treatment such as dialysis and insulin. Refusing food or treatment is a choice that a patient is entitled to make, if they have the capacity to make such a decision. However, that cannot translate into an obligation on the state to help the person to kill themselves. That was recognised, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, by the Bill’s sponsor in the other place, hence the wording of Clause 2(2). However, the noble and learned Lord’s Amendment 87 would remove the safeguard offered by Clause 2(2), as it would prevent the Bill applying only where the person has a mental disorder and the act of refusing food or hydration causes them to have an illness or disease.

Many states start by offering assistance to die in very limited circumstances, but, only a short time afterwards, the grounds for the state helping people to kill themselves expand—in some cases, almost inconceivably. Do you have no wheelchair? We will help you die. Do you have no home? We will help you die. Are you suffering from PTSD after military service? We will help you die. In many jurisdictions, anorexia, which is a treatable illness, is accepted as justification for assisted suicide and so on. All the examples that I have just given—no wheelchair, no home and suffering PTSD—were grounds for assisted dying in Canada recently.

There are many suggestions for how to address the terrible vacuum through which all sorts of conditions that are not terminal could, as a consequence of refusing food, treatment or hydration, become terminal. I put my name to one such amendment, Amendment 101, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and all the amendments in this group, other than Amendment 87, seek to address the issue. However, it is clear that the list of conditions and situations currently provided in Clause 2 as exceptions to the definition of terminal illness is not adequate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has even removed from the Bill the more general safeguard inserted by the MP for Batley and Spen. The noble and learned Lord will have to move far beyond his Amendments 87 and 87A if he is to satisfy the Committee that the definition of the situations that do not qualify as terminal illness is in any way satisfactory.

The prevalence of eating disorders goes way beyond what one might perhaps reasonably expect. NHS statistics for 2023 tell us that the prevalence of any eating disorder in the age group of 11 to 16 year-olds was 2.6%, but that in the case of girls it was 4.3%, compared with only 1% in the case of boys. If we move to the group of 17 to 19 year-olds, the figure is 12.5% in the whole group but, among girls, the number suffering from an eating disorder rises to 20.8%, compared with 5.1% among boys. Those are NHS figures. A review of current literature up to 2022 investigating suicide in eating disorders found that the prevalence of suicidal ideation was 51% and the prevalence of suicide attempts was 22%. I am very grateful to the young intern doing a PhD who provided me with these figures from the NHS. They demonstrate the magnitude of the problem of eating disorders today and, even more terribly, the 51% prevalence of suicidal ideation. Half of all people suffering from anorexia or other eating disorders will contemplate suicide, and more than one in five of those suffering from an eating disorder will attempt to take their own lives, although the disorder that they suffer from can be treated if they get proper treatment.

The Bill effectively creates a class of people—particularly disabled people, diabetics, those on dialysis, and others who need continuous life-sustaining treatment—who can at will cause themselves to have a terminal illness as defined by the Bill. Experts and the courts have agreed that refusing such treatment and creating a terminal illness out of a desire to die does not vitiate capacity. Can the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, explain how creating a class of disabled people for whom voluntary suicide is legal and state-supported is consistent with the UK’s obligations under Articles 2 and 14 of the European convention?

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Baroness O'Loan and Baroness Hollins

Committee stage
Friday 12th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to comment on this group in response to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has just said.

In its recent briefing for Peers, the Royal College of Psychiatrists gave its view:

“Assessors should be required to take all practicable steps to work with professionals involved in a person’s health and social care, and to talk to a relative, carer or nominated friend, including by accessing medical notes from both primary and secondary care”.


It expressed concern that

“a consideration of suicide protection duties are being bypassed by the Bill in its current form”

due to unmet need not being formally assessed. A previous DoLS is relevant to consideration of current capacity to decide to end one’s life. What would be the mechanism for reliably ensuring information that there has been a DoLS before it gets to the assessors and the panel?

Having mentioned the Royal College of Psychiatrists, I would like to make a short statement. The college has asked me to respond to the allegations about its leadership made by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, on 14 November, our first day in Committee. The president of the college, Dr Lade Smith, wrote to the noble Baroness asking her to withdraw her allegations, as they are inaccurate. But although the noble Baroness was present in the Chamber the following week, no clarification was provided. As a past president myself, I beg leave to set the record straight.

The college’s recommendations on the Bill are, in fact, based on 18 months’ consideration by a cross-college working group involving membership surveys, debate with members on proposals before other jurisdictions, and discussions with colleagues in other jurisdictions where assisted dying is practised. The president is clear that Dr Annabel Price, the appointed college lead for the Bill, has accurately represented its views when giving formal evidence to both Houses. With the Bill before the Lords, the Royal College of Psychiatrists is focusing on how to make it safer for people with mental health needs and learning disability needs, and better aligned with the responsibilities of psychiatrists. I feel that, in the light of the discussion on DoLS, this is an appropriate statement to make.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 16. I also support Amendments 16A, 114 and 114A because the very general definition in Clause 1 of a terminally ill adult who has the capacity to take their own life does not contain any consideration of those who have been deprived of their liberty under Section 4 of the Mental Capacity Act. It is an unfortunate reality that many of those detained in hospitals or care homes are detained because they lack the capacity to make a decision about their own care or treatment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, in such circumstances it is surely axiomatic that there should be careful consideration of cases involving individuals subject to a DoLS.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, even assessing the capacity of someone with dementia or another neurological condition, for example, can be profoundly difficult. This is not just because of the frequent fluctuation of both capacity and the extent to which any identified capacity enables the making of a particular decision; a medical practitioner or social worker who meets a person for the first time may be misled as to the capacity they actually have. As the Royal College of Psychiatrists noted in its written evidence,

“an assessment of a person’s mental capacity to decide to end their own life is an entirely different and more complex determination requiring a higher level of understanding”

than in other assessments of capacity.

In the 1997 case of Re MB, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said:

“The graver the consequences of the decision, the commensurately greater the level of competence required to take the decision”.


Capacity assessment is not a precise science. The unique context of this Bill makes taking a cautious approach appropriate. It is common sense that there is a likely correlation between incapacity in one area, so extreme that the state must deprive the person of their liberty, and incapacity to decide whether to end one’s own life. People whose incapacity for basic decisions is so severe that they are deprived of their liberty are the most vulnerable members of society.

I want to give your Lordships a brief example. I was aware of a woman in her late 80s who had been assessed and was subject to a DoLS. She objected to it and appealed against it. Intellectually, she was enormously able, possessed of considerable social skills despite her dementia. She was able to persuade those dealing with her appeal that she had capacity despite the very real concerns of her family, who knew the extent of her incapacity. The DoLS was lifted and she went back to her own home. Shortly afterwards, she was found playing golf in the road in her pyjamas at two o’clock in the morning. She was going to the supermarket at 4 am. She was leaving the door unlocked all night for her husband and cooking his dinner every night; he had died some 20 years previously.

That lady was my mother. She certainly would not have understood a suggestion that she should opt for an assisted death. The DoLS was subsequently reinstated. This is not an unusual situation. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, rejects these amendments, how does he consider that such vulnerable individuals can be protected from making this final decision, although they may not understand exactly what they are doing?