Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Baroness Berger and Baroness Parminter

Committee stage
Friday 6th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, I am going to do as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has requested and carry on with the group of amendments before us. To echo the sentiment just expressed about the language we use in this place—and it does matter—there are Members on all sides who have used the term “commit suicide”. Suicide is no longer a crime or a sin and, on that basis, for people affected by suicide and those left behind, it is a good reminder that we should all endeavour wherever possible, as the media tries to do outside this place, not to use that terminology.

In reference to one of the points just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, we will come back to these issues in some later amendments. Complicated grief can arise from an assisted death, and I shall propose some amendments to address that and to think about the people who are left behind. We certainly have evidence of that in other jurisdictions. We also know that adverse complications can arise from the drugs people ingest through an assisted death, which can have far-reaching consequences for the people left behind. We will debate that later.

As a signatory to Amendment 87A, I welcome the fact that these important changes will be accepted, along with Amendment 87. However, I want to add some additional information. It is important to acknowledge that these amendments do not address all the gaps connected to eating disorders. There is no protection for people whose eating disorders may bring them within scope of the Bill’s definition of terminal illness in other ways. That includes refusing treatment rather than food, which is addressed in Amendment 92, which I do not believe the sponsor would accept at the moment, or a person with bulimia sustaining damage to their organs through vomiting.

Why does this matter? We have talked about anorexia, which is a fatal disease and one of the mental health conditions that leads to the greatest loss of life through mental illness. However, it represents only a minority of eating disorder cases in the UK. A large population study published in 2017 found that anorexia accounted for just 8% of eating disorder cases. We know that bulimia is far more common, but it can also be fatal, with well-established risks including sudden cardiac death, severe electrolyte disturbance and rupture of the oesophagus. The amendment rightly focuses on anorexia but, as someone who is a signatory to Amendment 87A, I acknowledge that we must do everything to provide protection to all people with eating disorders in this country, including bulimia.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 101, which I drafted to try to close the dangerous loophole in the Bill whereby people with eating disorders could qualify for an assisted death, contrary to the intent of the sponsors to limit the Bill to people with a terminal life-limiting illness. That there is a raft of amendments on this matter shows that the Committee recognises that that loophole exists, which is welcome; indeed, I welcome all the amendments in this group.

My focus has consistently been on the deadliest of all eating disorders—that of anorexia, as was so well articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. My particular worry with the Bill as it stands is that, if treatment is delayed, withheld or withdrawn, the physical health of people with a mental illness could deteriorate to a life-threatening degree. They would therefore then be subject to the provisions of the Bill.