Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Home Office

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts
Friday 12th September 2025

(1 day, 19 hours ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Maclean of Redditch Portrait Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, as I speak towards the end of the day, the range of the arguments has been thoroughly rehearsed. I want to focus on an uncomfortable truth that most of us do not want to admit, even to ourselves: the issue of human nature and the evil that is in every human heart. I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner and Lord Sandhurst, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, who touched on this in their contributions.

As we gather here every day, we pray the words that Christ taught us,

“lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil”.

It is this that has informed my strongly held opposition to the Bill. No amount of additional scrutiny or legislative tweaks would make it acceptable, because I oppose the principle of assisted suicide. As a Christian, my faith shapes my view, but not from a rigid doctrinal perspective. Rather, it is through reflecting on the teachings of Jesus, who knew humans are capable of great love but also of great evil. We pray “deliver us from evil” because we know that, without God’s help, we are too weak to resist.

It is much too easy not to be honest about human nature. We pretend that all families are happy and that all children want the best for their dying relatives. We have rightly heard much about elderly people not wanting to be a burden, but we have not talked about putting temptation, at a very distressing time, in front of otherwise good and moral people. No amount of safeguards can take away the temptation to kill off one’s relatives under the euphemism of “assisted dying” to get hold of one’s inheritance. Care home fees are eye-wateringly expensive, and one can see how easy it would be to say that she or he “would not have wanted to live that way”, and no one would ever need to know. We cannot know how we would behave under these conditions of extreme temptation. Let us remember in our human history where we have witnessed human beings carrying out unspeakable acts of wickedness and violence against one another.

Supporters say that the Bill is narrow and safe, but the evidence from abroad does not persuade me. It tells me that, no matter how many safeguards are introduced, we cannot escape human nature. How often in this place, and in the other place for those of us who have been Members of Parliament, have we heard about so many terrible things happening and authorities letting people down? We gather together and say that such and such a terrible thing must not happen again and that we must introduce safeguards, but I am afraid that too often it does. However, we are not destined to repeat these actions, which I am convinced will lead to more suffering and more pain.

We have talked about vulnerable people, and I want to add my words about victims of domestic abuse. Coercive control in particular is extremely sophisticated. Abusers are perfectly capable of manipulating their victims to convincingly express a wish to die, and by the time the courts, with their delays, have caught up, it is too late.

This debate is about what kind of society we want to be. Do we hold to the truth that every life is made in the image of God? Are we able to be clear-eyed about the capacity to do the evil that lives in all of us, even though it is extremely uncomfortable for us to admit, especially in this Chamber? I know my view, and that is why I do not support the Bill.