Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown and Baroness Stedman-Scott

Committee stage
Friday 13th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

I am finishing with this quotation, and it is just a couple of sentences:

“We also know that when you acquire disability, which most people do … it is absolutely frightening … If doctors are not on our side because they are thinking, ‘Should we mention the fact that they could have an assisted death?’, that poses a big cultural issue for the NHS, but also for us having confidence in the NHS”.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the probing Amendment 161 in my name. It asks the simple but profoundly important question of whether registered medical practitioners should be granted a blanket legal protection to raise the possibility of ending any person’s life or whether that protection should be carefully and responsibly limited to patients already in their care.

At the heart of this debate lies the issue of safety and trust. The relationship between a patient and their doctor is not a casual exchange. I hope it is a deeply personal, often vulnerable, bond built on confidence, continuity and professional responsibility. When someone receives a terminal diagnosis, they are not merely confronting medical facts; they are confronting fear, uncertainty and the fragility of their remaining time. In that moment, words matter immensely. To grant blanket legal protection to any registered medical practitioner, regardless of whether they have an established clinical relationship with the individual, risks undermining that trust. It risks introducing the possibility that a suggestion about ending life could come from a professional who does not know the patient’s history, values, mental state, family circumstances or vulnerabilities.

Amendment 161 does not seek to obstruct lawful medical practice or to deny terminally ill adults the autonomy that the Bill intends to provide. Rather, it seeks to ensure that conversations about assisted dying occur in the right context, within a relationship in which the doctor knows the patient, understands their condition and is responsible for their ongoing care.

We must consider the subtle power imbalance inherent in clinical settings. A doctor’s words carry authority. Look at the effect they have on the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, at times. For a patient who is elderly, disabled, isolated or feeling like a burden, even a carefully phrased suggestion can carry unintended weight. If such a conversation is initiated by a practitioner with no established duty of care, we risk normalising a culture in which ending life becomes a broadly available option rather than a carefully safeguarded patient-led request.

Limiting legal protection to practitioners involved in a patient’s care and case strengthens safeguards. It ensures that any discussion arises from clinical knowledge, not abstract eligibility; it reinforces accountability; it reduces the risk of inappropriate suggestion; and it protects vulnerable people feeling steered towards a decision at a moment of profound weakness.

Autonomy is meaningful only when it is protected from subtle coercion, even unintentional coercion. By supporting Amendment 161, we are not diminishing choice: we are strengthening the ethical framework in which that choice is exercised. In matters of life and death, precision, boundaries and safeguards matter. Amendment 161 offers a proportionate, reasonable and ethically sound safeguard. It preserves trust in the medical profession, protects vulnerable patients and ensures that, if such conversations occur, they do so within the context of established clinical responsibility. For those reasons, I urge the Committee seriously to consider the intent and spirit behind Amendment 161.