Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, first, I thank the many people who have written to me to beg me to support the Bill, and I do. So many of those letters tell a horrific story of watching a loved one suffer. The proportion of those letters that are in support compared to those opposed is overwhelmingly in favour, by a ratio of 4:1.

But today, I speak for myself, for my rights, for my autonomy, for what I want to happen should I face the appalling circumstances of a terminal illness with six months to live, and for my right to choose. Autonomy is a central principle in modern ethics and law—the right to make decisions about your own body and life. If people can refuse life-saving treatment, create advance directives, or choose risky medical procedures, consistency suggests that they should also be able to choose when and how they die if terminally ill. Assisted dying does not force anyone to end their life; it simply respects the choice of those who want that option.

We already recognise the right to live according to one’s own values in freedom of religion, reproductive choices, sexual orientation, and marriage or not. So why not with this, the most intimate and important decision of our lives? Choosing assisted dying should be framed not as a rejection of life but as an embrace of dignity. People facing terminal illness or unbearable suffering may wish to avoid a drawn-out decline that strips them of control, of independence, of even their ability to recognise themselves. Respecting their choice acknowledges their humanity, rather than reducing them to passive recipients of medical care.

John Stuart Mill’s philosophy was that individuals should be free to make their own choices unless they harm others. Choosing to end one’s own suffering does not harm others, whereas forcing someone to endure against their will is a harm.

There is a divide. Those with means can travel abroad to access assisted dying, creating inequality, and often a lonely end. Allowing it locally ensures that choice is not only for the wealthy or the privileged. When assisted dying is illegal, people sometimes take desperate or violent steps to end their lives. Allowing a safe, regulated pathway gives people peace of mind and reduces traumatic situations for families and healthcare workers.

I thank Kim Leadbeater for her calm and thoughtful approach to addressing the fears that people naturally have about coercion. It seemed to me from reading the Commons debates that those concerns had been addressed and changes had been made. But I have absolute confidence that, should there be any remaining issues that give rise to further concerns, they will be found and addressed in this House.

I say to those with disabilities who are understandably very nervous and worried, this does not apply to disability. Disability is not a qualification. To those who raise palliative care as the answer, I wish it was the answer. But it is not a good enough answer in the reality of the circumstances people face today.

Lastly, I say to all those who may vote against the Bill for religious reasons, assisted dying is not compulsory. If your religious convictions require that you do not take advantage of the Bill, please have compassion and enable us who do not have your convictions to have the right to choose.