Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in strong opposition to the Bill before us today, not only as a Member of your Lordships’ House but as a person, like all others—whatever side of the argument they are on, deeply committed to the values of compassion and dignity. I add to that the value and sanctity, both through faith and principle, of the preservation of human life.

I had the great honour to serve as the United Kingdom’s Human Rights Minister for many years. For me, the most fundamental of human rights that we must continue to protect is the right to life itself. The noble and learned Lord knows that I have immense respect for him, and I regret that I cannot lend support to his Bill. Of course, I acknowledge the deep pain and suffering that many individuals and their families face when confronted with terminal illness—we have heard many moving stories. We have all been there with parents, families and friends. No one should underestimate the emotional toll of witnessing a loved one enduring excruciating suffering or the anguish of being in a state of health where one’s life seems to offer no prospect of meaningful recovery. Yet it is precisely because of this shared humanity and compassion that we are rightly driven as a country and a community to seek solutions that alleviate suffering in ways that are aligned with our collective values of preserving life.

One of the central arguments in favour of the Bill is that it provides individuals the opportunity to exercise autonomy and control over their own deaths. I understand the appeal of that. In a world that increasingly celebrates individual rights, it is only natural that we would seek to extend such autonomy to the ultimate decision in one’s life: of how one departs from this world. However, we must ask the question: is it truly a sign of freedom when we open the door to a practice that could be used to expedite life’s end, rather than seeking, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said on the issues of palliative care, to preserve and enhance life, even in its final moments? I believe that we have a moral as well as a legal and legislative duty to preserve life and offer care in its most fragile stages, not merely through the provision of medical interventions but through dignity, compassion and kindness.

As has been mentioned, psychological and emotional pressures can often cloud one’s judgement. We must therefore also ask ourselves whether we as a society have done enough to support those who are facing such dire circumstances, not just through palliative care but through the emotional, psychological and social support that would empower them to live the remaining days of their lives with dignity and peace.

Let us be clear, the very essence of the Bill—that assisted dying should be available as an option—represents a major shift in the values we uphold as a society. If we as a nation say that it is acceptable to take life in certain circumstances, I fear that we risk opening a door to consequences that go way beyond the current scope of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord mentioned Canada in his opening speech, but after that Bill was introduced in 2016, changes were made in 2021, with the words “terminal illness” removed. One in 20 deaths in Canada are now through euthanasia.

The fundamental question we must ask is: are we truly offering compassion when we facilitate death? At a time when technology is advancing and pain management methods are improving, we must ask ourselves whether assisted dying is the right approach. The role of the state is to protect life. I have many concerns about the Bill, such as the lack of family involvement and engagement and that the actual reflection of our diverse communities is not included. Ultimately, when we offer choices towards the end of life, it is certainly my view that we as a society that cherishes lives should provide for the dignity of every individual, with not only the medical care but the emotional and social support and investment that are required. When people are seeking to end their lives, and for those who are at the end of their lives, we should help them to live with dignity so that they choose, and we choose, life over death.