Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Duke of Wellington Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I enter this debate with trepidation. Unlike some noble lords, I am not a professional in medicine or law, but I have a view on this most complex matter that touches on so many aspects of humanity. Many of us will know of relations or friends who have died in pain. We must therefore do something to alleviate the unacceptable situation where, in a developed country in the 21st century, there are still too many people dying in pain or with a total loss of dignity. I am therefore in favour of the principle that something must be done.

When considering legislation, we are trying to prevent a present or future wrong without inadvertently creating an unintended further wrong. Looking at the Bill, we are all aware that a possible future wrong could be that a vulnerable person might in some way be or feel pressured into seeking an end to their lives when circumstances do not justify such an action. However, as far as I can see, there are more than sufficient safeguards in the Bill to prevent such a situation. In fact, I am concerned that the process of seeking assistance has become too onerous, particularly for vulnerable people.

The process involves, first, consulting the co-ordinating doctor, who must be appropriately trained, and then the independent doctor, who must also consult other professionals; then the commissioner has to refer the case to an assisted dying panel consisting of a psychiatrist, a social worker and a person who has held high judicial office. After the various consultations, another 14 days of further reflection and a second declaration are required. I am concerned that this lengthy and detailed process will be difficult, particularly for people who might be described as vulnerable. I question whether the Bill, in trying to create sufficient safeguards, has not in fact exposed the patient to further anxiety, distress and probably pain.

The Bill is drafted to give a choice to the patient about how they wish to die. The current law does not give patients that choice. The patient should have a choice, and therefore I support the Bill. It would clearly be wrong for a patient to be pressured to seek an assisted death, but it would be equally wrong for a patient who is terminally ill and in pain to be put off seeking assistance because the process of application is too complex and lengthy.

There are strong arguments on both sides, but I come down in favour of giving to the terminally ill a choice to end their lives in a dignified way with as little pain as possible. The alternative is the status quo, where those who can afford it and are in good enough health go to Switzerland. That cannot be right, and I therefore support the Bill.