Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. We are at a crossroads and must decide what kind of a nation we want to be. We have long believed that human life is sacred, worthy of dignity and respect. This has been enshrined in the biblical foundation of our laws. Some would say that this belief in the sanctity of human life is outmoded, and only compelling if you hold old-fashioned religious views. As a Christian, I strongly adhere to those beliefs. What happens if we reject this fundamental principle, which has served this nation so well for so long? Is it not time to bin this old-fashioned view of life? To do so, in my view, would undermine the very foundation of our societal values.

Writing in the Times recently, Matthew Parris argued that the elderly and infirm are a drain on resources and that it would be “a good thing” if they felt the unspoken pressure that their “time is up”. This kind of attitude will lead to an economic evaluation of human life, carried out against the backdrop of the crushing weight of the pressure on the NHS and the nation’s finances. There is absolutely no question that the Bill, if passed, will devalue the importance of human life, and economics will become part of the decision-making process.

The NHS will save money, and families will protect their inheritance, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said. It has been estimated that the Canadian Government and their provinces are now saving at least $150 million a year as a result of assisted suicide. As we know, the scope for eligibility continues to be expanded there, and the same will happen here. I am not at all reassured by the Bill’s sponsors about restricted eligibility. The slippery slope will become a reality, for sure.

We must not dismiss the deep concerns that many in the medical profession have expressed about the Bill. So many individuals and organisations have flagged that they are either opposed to the Bill or extremely worried about aspects of it, including most of the royal societies, as has been mentioned a number of times in the debate. This is deeply concerning.

It became apparent last Friday that some supporters of the Bill believe that amendments in the Commons might prove the Bill to be “unwieldy if not unworkable”, to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, who said there is already

“too much bureaucracy and oversight”.—[Official Report, 12/9/25; col. 1797.]

in the Bill. Others—I agree with them—consider that the Bill needs lots of additional safeguards, including to protect those with mental illness, eating disorders, disabilities, communication difficulties and so on. Not only is the Bill currently not fit for purpose; it will become completely unworkable when amended even further.

If we continue down the road enshrined in the Bill, we will not only devalue the precious gift of God-given life; we will see people who could live for years dying early for want of compassion, depriving them, their families and society of their valuable contribution. This is not an exact science. Freedom of information data from the DWP shows that one in five people who qualify for end-of-life benefits are still alive three years later.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, referred to his father in his contribution. As I recall, he also did so the previous time we debated this topic, and I referred to our daughter, who died aged 42 in 2013. I would get very emotional if I explored that further. I mention it because we all have personal stories and family experiences that have shaped our views, for or against the Bill, but we have to stick with principles. If we support it, we risk diluting our sympathy and concern for the elderly, the frail, the disabled and the depressed, seeing them as a drain on resources when they opt to live at society’s expense rather than conform to the new norm and opt to die. The Bill is dangerous and a retrograde step.