Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, in my view, this Bill invites us to cross into completely new and dangerous territory. Although it has been argued that we already, in the law, allow for intervention, we would be permitting for the first time the policy and widespread practice of ending life by medical means. It would be a fundamental alteration in how we understand the purpose of medicine, the duty of the state and the value that we place on life itself. It is not the natural course of dying with support but the deliberate intervention to end life. If Parliament is to legislate on such a grave matter, the language we use should be transparent and precise so that the public understand fully what is at stake.

It is assisted suicide and we should call it for what it is. Human life carries dignity and meaning in every stage and circumstance. That worth is not reduced by age, illness or disability. When people fear pain, we must provide support for better relief. When they fear loneliness, we must ensure companionship and support. When they fear neglect, we should guarantee care. The solution to suffering is not to make death one of the prescribed remedies.

A number of issues have come up time and time again and it is right to emphasise them because they are at the heart of the concerns that people have. People have written on many issues. I thank people for getting in contact with me. A central safeguard is said to be the requirement of the six-month prognosis. We have heard about clinical prediction of life expectancy oftentimes being totally unreliable. It is an estimate, not a certainty. Doctors acknowledge that such judgments can be mistaken. If a person’s eligibility rests on a calculation that is inherently fragile, the foundation of the safeguard is insecure.

One of my main concerns, shared by so many people, is the pressure on older people. Even where explicit coercion is absent, people will feel that they should choose an earlier death to relieve others of responsibility or to reduce demands on family or care systems. Evidence from abroad shows that individuals frequently cite such considerations in their decisions. There will be a new and silent expectation on those who already feel vulnerable.

Then we are told that this legislation is narrow in scope. Experience indicates, as many noble Lords have said, that once the principle of assisted suicide is accepted, criteria will broaden, through later legislation, judicial rulings or medical practice shifts. Even if the Bill begins with limits, there is no guarantee that those limits will remain firm over time.

Regarding the safeguards that were outlined so fully by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in his introduction, some of the most significant checks that we were told about were revised as the Bill progressed through the other place. Oversight has moved from established judicial processes to new administrative structures. Definitions have altered. Clarity has been reduced. There is much vagueness. Too much power has been given to the Government, through delegated legislation, to make regulations. Protections appear less certain, even before the Bill reaches the statute book. What confidence can we have in their long-term durability?

We must have regard to what should be our priorities. Across the United Kingdom, access to specialist end-of-life care remains extremely patchy. There was a conference in Belfast just yesterday on palliative care which illustrated the many deficiencies in Northern Ireland. Too many families still face inadequate pain management and insufficient support. Before contemplating a law that allows doctors to hasten death in a widespread way, our first responsibility is to guarantee that everyone can receive comprehensive palliative care of the highest standard. That is where compassion and justice should direct us.

No one who has listened to this debate can fail to understand that everyone who has spoken has compassion, but compassion must be joined with caution. Even those who agree with the principle of assisted dying or assisted suicide must acknowledge that this Bill is grossly deficient, even for that purpose.