Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Campbell of Surbiton Excerpts

Friday 27th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Those of us who were following the debate in the Scottish Parliament last week will know that one of the reasons MSPs changed their minds was exactly the lack of clarity of the protections for conscientious objectors. Their ability to refuse to participate in assisted dying was not clear and that Bill has now fallen. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm his response to the royal colleges’ call for an opt-in system to be adopted, and how can he guarantee that no one will face legal or professional repercussions, including indirect ones, for refusing to participate in assisted dying? I beg to move.

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I have added my name to my noble friend Lady Finlay’s Amendment 190, and support Amendments 268, 359, 383, 617 and 657 in this group. This basket of amendments, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, has said, seeks to ensure that no doctor or associated healthcare professional is under any pressure to participate in the process of assisted dying unless actively opting in to the process.

Amendment 190 provides an important safeguard against pressure on doctors by making it clear that the obligation to refer a patient to relevant information and another doctor applies only when the patient has specifically requested a preliminary discussion on assisted dying. It also ensures that doctors who do not wish to be involved are not required to take part beyond that point.

Last summer, I spent six weeks in St Thomas’ critical care after an accident at sea in the Bay of Biscay. I came home broken, bruised and in terrible pain, but my salvation was the compassionate, dedicated team of health professionals whose combined efforts brought me back to life and back to this Chamber. This was what they were born to do. As ever, I took the opportunity to ask each person who came to my bedside what they thought of the Bill and whether they would participate in its application should it become law. Hand on heart, not one doctor, nurse or allied professional said yes. What they did say was, “It’s not what I trained for years to do. My job satisfaction is making patients as comfortable as possible and supporting life however long or short”. I must admit that it made me feel a great deal better, and, yes, safer, knowing they would go the extra mile to help me while in their care.

A number of the royal colleges have raised concerns about the pressures on healthcare professionals to clear hospital beds and meet treatment targets. This, in turn, may pressurise them to participate in the assisted dying process—a subtle yet deadly form of unconscious coercion, causing division within medical teams and undermining patient trust. This was clearly illustrated in the sobering BBC documentary “Better Off Dead?” last year.

Throughout our exchanges in this Committee, I have heard the term “treatment option” to describe assisted dying. It is not a treatment option. Assisted dying as a treatment does not accord with the fundamental principles of medical practice. Medical treatment is to alleviate symptoms and support life, however short, in the least distressing way possible. To do otherwise would fundamentally alter the nature of medical practice, shifting the focus from supporting life to suggesting its end, leaving patients feeling pressurised or fearful when seeking care.

Amendments 383 and 657 in this group address this issue. The evidence is clear that without these amendments, we are in danger of travelling the same road as the Canadian legislation, a law that began as tightly drafted legislation but soon gave way to systemic pressures on healthcare professionals, many of whom now see assisted dying as part of the end-of-life treatment. We must not allow the introduction of assisted dying to disrupt the fundamental principles of healthcare.

The opt-in system proposed by my noble friend Lady Finlay and others in this group is not about protecting the rights of healthcare professionals; it is about preserving the very essence of patient care. The amendments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, fall short of addressing these concerns. By limiting the statutory opt-in solely to the bespoke training for co-ordinating doctors and independent doctors, he leaves significant gaps in protection for the wider medical workforce. They are seen as too narrow and procedural to meet the fundamental concerns raised by the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

I urge your Lordships to support the amendments I refer to and to stand with the royal colleges in their call for a clear opt-in system that respects the rights and dignity of all healthcare professionals, providing them with a safe, ethical healthcare environment and protecting the integrity of their relationship with patients.