Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Blackstone Excerpts

Friday 24th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will give way. I am sure that the noble Baroness will do the same for me in a moment.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for letting me get in. I have sat through 13 days of Committee on this Bill and I have hardly spoken at all. I will cut what I intended to say, as I know we are beginning to run out of time, to allow others who still want to come in to have a chance of doing so. Moreover, much of what I wanted to say has already been said by others and I want to avoid what has happened during Committee—endless repetition. However, I will endorse two or three important things that have been said.

I endorse what has been said about the effect of the failure to scrutinise the Bill in a fair, considered and disciplined way, so that voting on possible improvements could have taken place, on the thousands of people who have experienced agony, loss of dignity and a desperate wish to die peacefully and as soon as possible. These people and their close friends and relatives, who feel their pain too, have been let down, I am afraid to say, by a relatively small number of Members of this House who have been determined to block the Bill. I know it has been said already, but I endorse that.

I also strongly endorse the criticism that the opponents of the Bill in this House have refused to take into account the overwhelming support for it from the general public, including from the minority of people in this country of religious faith and from individual disabled people. In both cases, most of them want to see a change in the law and something along the lines of what the Bill is trying to do. Its opponents have damaged the reputation of the Lords, not just by the number of amendments tabled—some of them absurd—and the repetition entailed, but by the lack of accuracy and rigour in making their arguments. That we have not talked about today, and I want to do so in a particular area.

There are many examples I could cite, but I will concentrate on the presentation of the medical profession as being opposed to the Bill. I am not a doctor, but I declare an interest as chair of the trust board of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which, like virtually all the royal colleges, has taken a neutral position on the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Berger, has just given, in my view, a really misleading impression about this. I regret that she felt the need to do that.

It is absolutely true that, when assisted dying was debated in the House in 2014 and 2015, the medical professional organisations were opposed and there was justification in referring to it at that time. But those who are still implying this have simply not caught up with the changes in medical opinion over that decade. This is reflected in the view of 50 senior clinicians, including 13 former presidents of the royal colleges and the BMA. They said:

“The status quo in this country is not working; the blanket prohibition of assisted dying has made the way we deliver end-of-life care in this country more cruel and more dangerous. You now have an opportunity to vote for legislation that will give people in England and Wales choice and control at the end of life. In our view this choice will come to be seen as a compassionate and integral part of our National Health Service, of immense comfort to dying people and their loved ones. Changing the law will send a clear message to all in society that we will respect their wishes. We believe it is time for Westminster to show compassion by giving … people choice”.


That is very important.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not going to give way because time is short.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

I am sorry, but I am not giving way. I do not think it is appropriate for me to do so, and many others have not. I am happy to discuss it with the noble Baroness afterwards.

The largest survey of medical opinion in the UK by the BMA found doctors more likely to support than to oppose assisted dying. Organisations that represent them have worked closely with my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and Kim Leadbeater MP, the sponsor of the Bill in the House of Commons. I had intended to turn to several examples of blatant misrepresentation that have taken place in Committee, but in the interests of giving other people an opportunity to express their views, I will leave them out. I am afraid to say that it was a failure—

[Noble Lords]

My Lords—

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

I have already said that I am not giving way. I turn to my conclusion. The debate on the Bill would have been of a higher quality and met the expectations of high standards in this House if those who oppose it had acknowledged the constructive co-operation of the medical profession and if the position of medical stakeholders generally were not misrepresented by opponents of the Bill.

We must return to the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, but we must do so in a rigorous and honest way, where we do not misrepresent the position of the medical profession. We have to complete it as well, to be sure that those who continue to suffer terrible deaths because of the cruel unfairness of the present law no longer have to do so.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

Is the noble Baroness aware that, in the evidence from the royal colleges given to the Select Committee appointed by your Lordships’ House, everyone expressed their concern about the safety of the Bill? Individual letters and so on, even from 50 people, are not the same as the evidence received by our Select Committee.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will answer that briefly. I did not, in what I have just said, in any way imply that the medical colleges did not have some suggestions for improvements to the Bill. Many people have suggestions for improvements to the Bill, including my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. What I am saying is that it is misleading to suggest that they are opposed to the Bill in principle as a profession—they are not; they have been neutral.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

Before my noble friend sits down, I say that I have been accused of dishonesty in my representations. I will just repeat what I said. I was very clear that, while the overwhelming majority—bar one, I think—of the royal medical colleges take a neutral position on the principle of assisted dying, there is not a single medical royal college in this country that will attest to the safety of the Bill. I reiterate that that should concern us all.