Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Anna Dixon Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lauren Edwards]

Absolutely—it would set a dangerous precedent. Those Members who want to come in on the specifics of the Parliament Acts will have ample opportunity to do so later in my speech, and I will be willing to take interventions on that matter.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley for the courage, courtesy and openness she showed during the passage of her Bill. Her engagement with those from all sides of the debate, particularly in Committee, delivered a stronger Bill that this House voted for on Report and Third Reading. One strengthening factor was the introduction of a requirement for the Health Secretary to report regularly on the availability, quality and distribution of palliative care. In asking parliamentarians to consider assisted dying, my hon. Friend also prompted a national conversation about how we improve and fund palliative care. We saw more funding for hospices, as well as Government action to develop a new framework to improve palliative care and end-of-life care.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I chair the all-party parliamentary group on hospice and end-of-life care, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend shares my concern. Given that an estimated 170,000 people die in this country each year without access to palliative and end-of-life care, there can be no choice until hospice and end-of-life care are properly funded.

[Lauren Edwards]

It is absolutely right that, for instance, the Prime Minister and the Government have said that improving palliative care must be a priority—I think that is something we can all support. Everybody should have access to good-quality palliative, hospice and end-of-life care in their final moments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

Not just now. Our Committee asked our independent expert panel to look into the quality and availability of palliative care, and the results should give everyone in this room pause for thought, because we do not have a universal offer of palliative care in this country. The report points to a postcode lottery of provision. Hospices are largely funded through charitable donations, which means that in better-off areas there is better care. The Committee hears constantly about the social determinants of health. Let us not have one of them be that those in wealthy areas have the choice of a comfortable death, while the poor must choose an early one.

Furthermore, there is a workforce crisis in palliative care. There are 700 palliative care doctor posts, but 70 vacancies. Add to that 130 doctors expected to leave the profession in the next five years while, to make matters worse, training bottlenecks mean that there will not be specialist doctors trained to replace them. All that is in a landscape where we expect demand for palliative care to increase by 55% in the current decade.

I want a safe Bill that takes all those things into account. A safe Bill would give some discretion to the Health Secretary on when they implement it. This Bill does not.

[Anna Dixon]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

I am sorry; I will not just now. This Bill has an auto-commencement clause, which means that within four years of the passage of this Bill—whatever the state of our health service, of our social care, or of our palliative care; even if there has been another pandemic—it will come into force.

That brings me to our safeguards. I cannot vote for a Bill that does not sufficiently guard against coercion. That is what my constituents with disabilities say they fear the most and, having been in charge of social care, I know what that looks like. Let me be clear: the safeguards in this Bill are not enough. If the Bill in its current form passes, a patient would be subject to more scrutiny to give up a kidney than to give up their life. The ultimate weakness of this Bill is that the question being asked when a patient goes to the panel is a medical and legal one, not a social and psychological one. The main judgment will be an assessment of whether they are likely to die in the next six months, not of why they have chosen to die or whether there is a risk of coercion.

Coercion is not always committed by the traditional villain; it is not someone who wants money. It is often committed by a loved one at the end of their tether, as support falls away, money drains, options narrow and people’s sense of what choices they have narrow, too. Without improving palliative care, we will put far too many people in that heartbreaking position.

As MPs, we are used to being forthright in our opinions and advocating for ourselves and our constituents. On our Select Committee, we constantly hear from vulnerable patients who say that they are frequently ignored, talked about or talked over by medical professionals. They feel talked at, not talked to. When considering this legislation, I do not ask whether it will work for people like me; I ask whether it will work for the most vulnerable—those whose voices are rarely heard and who are most dependent on the state for protection. They rely on us to be their voice.

The Bill comes from a place of compassion, but it could lead to a place where a disabled person feels that they are less. It could lead to a place where poor social care means that people do not feel that they have a choice between a comfortable life and an early death. That is why I say, with a heavy heart, not this Bill and not at this time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I have watched the assisted dying debate for many years, since it started in Oregon. Many countries across the world now have assisted dying, including some of our Crown dependencies, and I am pleased that this Bill builds on the good and rejects the bad that can be seen. I am also reassured that there have been hundreds of hours of debate and scrutiny, which has built the Bill in front of us, so I am very comfortable supporting it.

I know that people have extremely strong views on this Bill, and I respect them for that. I want to speak to the people who are undecided, because a lot of myths have attached themselves to this Bill, and I hope to knock some of them out. I am not sure if Members are aware that I ran a children’s hospice before coming to this place. I can say that the palliative care system is amazing. The end-of-life care it provides is absolutely incredible, but everything everybody has said about it being a postcode lottery is true. It depends on whether a facility is in your area, has space, and has funding. We need more funding, and we need universal palliative care, but that is not what this debate is about.

When the subject was first debated, I was deeply shocked by the number of disability groups and disabled people who thought that the Bill was targeted at them. I had not realised how vulnerable they felt in our society, and that they could believe that the Bill might be an attack on them.

[Anna Dixon]

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sarah Champion]

I am not going to give way, because we are really pushed for time. I want to say to those people that the Bill is tightly drafted. It specifies that it is for people of sound mind who have a terminal diagnosis of six months or less, and that has to be verified by two clinicians and then a panel to ensure—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to give my personal views on this Bill, as colleagues in health have taken over responsibility for it.

I have spent most of my life as someone who was highly sympathetic to the cause of assisted dying and imagined that I would support it if I ever was an MP, but that changed in 2018 when I read the Gosport War Memorial hospital independent panel report published in that year. The report should be more widely read, and I often wonder why it did not get the attention that it deserved. It found that between 1987 and 2001, more than 450 NHS patients had their lives prematurely shortened by healthcare staff. They were mainly elderly—the average age being 81—but some were as young as 61, and more than 70% of them had been admitted to hospital not needing palliative care or being at the end of their lives.

The report describes what happened to some of them. One patient was admitted for respite care but deteriorated and became confused during his stay. Staff asked permission to give him diamorphine, but his daughter refused as he was not in pain. However, his wife later agreed, and he was started on diamorphine via syringe driver. He died the same day. A man admitted for dementia was started on a diamorphine syringe driver; staff asked his son for permission, and he gave it, but he felt that there was no explanation of what it meant to be given diamorphine. The dose was doubled, and his father died five days later. His son felt that the diamorphine had effectively killed him.

Why did that happen? It happened because the staff in that hospital and on that ward had developed a culture of prioritising convenience in looking after patients over the value of their lives. It speaks to something that we often do not like to talk about and might feel guilty about: looking after people is not only challenging but can sometimes be deeply unpleasant.

As a doctor, I have helped to look after people who, when someone approached them to give them care, would scratch or hit out at them. I have helped to look after patients who refuse to stay in bed even though it is in their best interests, and who continually wander the wards and need to be monitored all the time. Then there is something that perhaps seems benign but is sometimes very challenging: the patients who continually call out for help again and again and again, perhaps asking for a medicine or a meal that they have already been given, and refuse to be consoled.

Most of the time, that brings out the best in our nature, as we would want—to be kind, caring and compassionate —but it can sometimes bring out the worst in our nature: our impatience, our intolerance and even our cruelty. While I have seen that happen in hospitals, I know that it goes on in private homes up and down the country every day.

[Anna Dixon]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Dr Mullan]

I will not; there is not time.

While I do not seek to say that the Bill will be used in that way—to deliberately bring about an end to the lives of confused or elderly patients—my worry is about how it will insert itself into that battle in our country between the best and worst of our natures, in families, conversations and settings where people, as much as we do not like to believe it, actively, for selfish reasons, wish that their relatives were dead, and where those relatives know that their family wish that they were dead. I do not want a Bill, or a message from this Parliament, to go out to the wider country to say that not just Parliament but the mechanisms of the NHS—a wing of the state—will sometimes support and help them to end their lives.

I remain deeply sympathetic to the scenarios and circumstances that people have described, and I can personally foresee a situation where I would want to make use of this Bill and feel that it would benefit me, but we should not legislate for what we might want. We have to legislate for what is in the broader interests of our constituents and our country, not least because, as many have articulated, the Bill has serious flaws. There is, in particular, the arbitrary decision to implement it in four years’ time, regardless of what might be happening with our palliative care services, which have, even recently, faced new and very real funding challenges.

While I understand why people think the Bill would bring benefits for some people, and I acknowledge that it would, I think that the price we are asking some of the most vulnerable and in-need people in our society to pay, and the risk we are asking them to face, is simply too high.