Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Friday 13th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The panel has the power. Clause 17(4) says that the panel

“may ask any person appearing to it to have relevant knowledge or experience to report to it on such matters relating to the person to whom the referral relates as it considers appropriate.”

That power would include a power to ask the local authority to provide any information it wants.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for a comprehensive and useful set of answers. I asked a rather more banal question—it was a long time ago—about workforce challenges. What if the social workers or the psychiatrists cannot be found? We are already acutely short of psychiatrists and social workers in general, and that is problematic in particular geographic areas. Could the noble and learned Lord comment on what will happen if the legal expertise, social workers or psychiatrists are not available in one part of the country? Will it be a postcode lottery?

My second question is this. Has the noble and learned Lord consulted the likes of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the British Association of Social Workers about what the Bill will do to workforce pressures? It seems to me that it will affect workability. If these panels are so important and there are not enough people to sit on them, I am worried that there will be a watering-down, with the grabbing of any old social worker who wanders past. Maybe the noble and learned Lord could clarify that.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

If there are not enough people with the requisite expertise to people the panels then there will not be panels to do the job. That is why the broad categories have been adopted in the Bill. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has expressed views in relation to this, as has the British Association of Social Workers. However, it is necessary for us to find people to do this process, because the workability of the scheme depends on it, and we believe it is possible to do that. We recognise the concerns that have been expressed, including by the noble Baroness, who is right to say that if we do not have people who can people the panels then we cannot do the process.

On the broader issue of what happens if we have people in one part of the country but not another, it will be for the voluntary assisted dying commissioner to ensure that, when a panel is required, it can be provided.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 155, which is different to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, on patients who opt out. My amendment ensures that when a person has previously cancelled the process of obtaining assisted dying—having considered it as an option and then rejected it—they can continue to discuss their terminal illness freely with their medical practitioner without being pressed to reconsider assistance to end their life.

As we are hearing, we have had a great deal of evidence on this issue. In its written evidence, the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland observed:

“Doctors influence decisions made by their patients in conscious and unconscious ways and are themselves shaped by their personal and professional life experiences … if the patient clearly rejects AD, they may suspect that other treatments suggested by this doctor are driven by an agenda to shorten their lives or may otherwise result in this. This could lead to patients opting not to engage with palliative care or to the loss of trust in a medical practitioner or in the medical profession at a crucial time in people’s lives”.


There is a clear danger here. If a patient has already considered and rejected assisted dying and their doctor raises it again, it may appear as though the doctor is pursuing an agenda to shorten that person’s life. That risk to trust at the very moment when trust is most needed should not be created by the legislation before us.

I also want to refer to evidence given to the Commons by Dr Vicki Ibbett, an NHS specialty doctor in psychiatry with extensive professional and personal experience of suicidal ideation. She expressed serious concerns about the impact of the Bill on suicide prevention work and highlighted that the voices of people with lived experience of suicidal ideation were not heard in oral evidence sessions. Speaking about terminally ill people who may experience thoughts of not wanting to be alive, Dr Ibbett wrote:

“Thoughts of wanting to die have a known association with being given a cancer diagnosis and learning of being terminally ill … Suicidal ideation may have arisen as part of the response to a new diagnosis with a terminal prognosis. It may, therefore, be part of an ‘adjustment reaction’. Adjustment Disorder often settles without professional intervention. If it persists additional support may be beneficial. Assisted suicide should not be facilitated”.


My Amendment 155 therefore seeks to ensure that a doctor may not raise assisted dying with a patient whose medical records show they have previously cancelled a first or second declaration. When somebody has already walked back from that decision, the law should protect them from renewed pressure, intentional or not.

Finally, I will quote from a recent article by Jim McManus, national director of health and wellbeing at Public Health Wales, writing in a personal capacity. He wrote that

“no end-of-life decision happens in a vacuum. Choices are shaped by many things, and sometimes these are inequality, unmet need, patchy palliative care, and the grinding pressures of an overstretched NHS … People expressing a wish to die may be experiencing treatable depression, loneliness, or feelings of being a burden. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has raised concerns that the Bill’s safeguards are insufficient to protect people in exactly these vulnerable states”.


Amendment 155 is a small but vital safeguard, ensuring that when someone has stepped back from assisted dying, their decision is respected. At such a vulnerable moment, no patient should face renewed pressure; our priority must be to protect, trust and uphold compassionate, high-quality care at the end of life.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, what influenced me to look positively at a number of amendments in this group, and to table Amendment 150, was that some jurisdictions with assisted dying legislation explicitly prohibit doctors from initiating assisted dying discussions. I know that there was a bit of a row earlier about Australia, South Australia and New Zealand, but the truth is that people who have this legislation thought it was important to say that if a doctor raised this with the patient, it would breach professional misconduct. In fact, South Australia even used the wording “must not … suggest”. That is quite hard.

However, it is very interesting that this group of amendments holds importance for all of us. In other words, it cannot be assumed to be either filibustering or messing around, because we are citing places that have assisted dying, and they think that this is a very good and important safeguard—or that it is at least worth debating.

One reason they do that is the issue of autonomy, which I know is very close to the noble and learned Lord. The concern is that, if a doctor initiates discussions about assisted dying, it undermines the very principle of the Bill’s supporters, which is to ensure that the decision regarding assistance to end your own life is yours taken freely; it is patient-initiated. I was rather surprised to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, cite the BMA. What happened to the patient-centric approach? We now have the BMA versus the patient. If a patient wants an assisted death, good—well, not good, but they can initiate the discussion and raise it themselves, if they want to; it is an autonomous decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

It was so moving to hear the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, and the points that others made about the words that people may hear, including people with learning disabilities. I was reflecting on the evidence we heard at the Select Committee from the National Down Syndrome Policy Group. It is not just the words that people may hear; it is also what they see in front of them. In particular, what was really striking—I had not thought about this—was that even the uniform of the doctor who is having that conversation could suggest a position of authority that someone with a learning disability should show acquiescence to. I thought that was something for us to consider in the light of all these important amendments.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

That is very helpful. When I see a uniform, I get a bit quivery as well—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

We are obviously at that time of day.

As we have gathered, I do not want doctors to initiate raising assisted dying as a healthcare option at all but, if they do, I do not want there to be any linguistic whitewashing. Sarah Wootton, the chief executive of Dignity in Dying, wrote in her book Last Rights:

“We have to move away from idealised, sanitised, nursery-rhyme accounts of what death can be…towards truthful”,


no-BS—I have abbreviated that—and

“plain-spoken explanations of what could happen”.

Surely these words, which are very powerful, should also apply to conversations about assisted dying or assisted suicide. Let us ensure that, if a doctor is to raise it with patients, there is no attempt to hide behind idealised and sanitised nursery-rhyme accounts of what assisted death would be like.

That is why I was particularly keen to emulate this no-BS approach, which is why I added my name to Amendment 160 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. This would ensure that, in any discussion that a doctor initiates, they make it clear what is being suggested—namely, that this about ending a person’s life. If a doctor said to you, “Would you like a dignified death?”, that might sound very appealing, but if they say, “Would you like me to give you a lethal drug that means that you can take your own life?”, it might suddenly feel a bit different. We genuinely need to say what we are talking about. A similar concern is raised in Amendment 167 by the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie. The doctor must not hide behind opaque language and euphemism that avoids spelling out clearly what they are suggesting and offering, from the first preliminary step to the ending of a patient’s life by, as I said, basically helping them take their own life.

My final point is that we are saving the doctors here. Doctors starting to suggest that you can end people’s lives will completely change the relationship between doctors and patients. You are forcing a doctor to think, “Is it in the best interest of this patient to die, with my help, through the ingestion of a lethal substance?” That must mess up the mind of a doctor, who is trained to keep life going as much as possible. It would erode trust in healthcare relationships moving forward because if, for example, your doctor suggested assisted dying and you said no, you would then have to go back and face the same doctor. I am not entirely convinced that I would be confident enough in the medical practitioner who had told me I would be better off dead to ask, “Can you help me extend my life a bit longer?” I might want to doctor-shop, as they say.

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

I am perhaps imagining the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, as a quivering wreck. If that is how she feels, you can imagine what it is like for most of us when we face our doctors, so the point was made very strongly.

There are so many good amendments here and I cannot possibly refer to all of them, but I want to drive home, by force of comparison, a point that arises from two things that were said—one by the noble Lord, Lord Rook, and one by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who is no longer in her place. The noble Lord, Lord Rook, said that there is no duty under the Bill to raise assisted dying, which is obviously true. It is very important to pursue what that implies.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, said that by raising assisted dying a doctor is not performing a neutral act, so the question we have to ask is what is going on when a doctor proposes assisted dying. I am saying that if it is not a neutral act it is an ideological act, and that is not something appropriate for a professional.

I shall draw a comparison that will illustrate that point. The Government keep promising to introduce a Bill to ban conversion therapy—and I think that they will do so. The objection to conversion therapy is that it is a form of coercion of the weak and of exploitation, forcing an ideology on people that is considered to be wrong and exploiting their feeling of weakness. That is the danger we face here. Many noble Lords will object, of course—and they will be right—that conversion therapists are quacks whereas doctors are real doctors. In my view, that makes it even more important that the doctors stick to their professional obligations and do not start advocating things they happen to believe are right. If we think about it that way, we will see just how important these amendments are.