Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Goudie Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all those who kindly wrote to me and sent emails, including members of the public, religious organisations, religious leaders and many people in the medical profession. There is no greater responsibility than how we treat those at the end of their life—the vulnerable, the ill, the elderly and the dying—and that is precisely why this Bill troubles me so deeply.

I will start by addressing something fundamental: language. Euphemisms are dangerous; they are designed to conceal what is actually happening. Why is this called by its supporters an assisted dying Bill? It is nothing of the sort. Assistance sounds good, and dying is a natural process which comes to us all. Pain relief and emotional support are vital and uncontroversial. However, this Bill is not about that; it is about assisted suicide, and that is altogether a different matter.

I understand why some see this as a matter of choice, but they cannot ignore the context in which that choice is made. When someone is terminally ill, frightened, exhausted and overwhelmed, they are at their most vulnerable. It is precisely at that moment that this Bill proposes to offer them a legal means to end their life, aided by others, approved by our institutions and normalised by law. An individual who takes their own life alone does so out of desperation, but a combined operation involving doctors, lawyers, family and the state is something entirely different. Those who support the process may act with the best of intentions, but motivations are not always pure.

It is rarely simple and, even when it is, the risk of coercion remains real. I do not believe that we can eliminate that risk and this Bill certainly does not do enough to do so. Once we create a legal route to assisted suicide, how can we ever be sure that a patient’s choice is not shaped, even subtly, by pressure, manipulation, guilt or simply the sense of being a burden?

This raises another concern: the undermining of palliative care. Palliative care is so important. Instead of extending choice, I fear that we are quietly narrowing it. Not everyone has access to high-quality end-of-life care, and not everyone is given a full range of pain management, hospice support and spiritual care, or even the time to prepare for a dignified death.

Rather than committing to universal excellent palliative services, this Bill offers another option: to end life earlier. This is not a service to people at the end of their lives; it is an abdication of responsibility to provide excellent services to those in need. Some will say that this is about autonomy, but it is not true autonomy; true autonomy cannot exist without full support to live. We have seen in other countries that what begins as a narrow exception can widen. In Canada, eligibility has already expanded beyond terminal illness to include chronic illnesses or disabilities.

Finally, we must listen to the voices of those most at risk. Many disabled people’s organisations oppose the Bill, not because they fear death but because they fear that society too often assumes that their lives are not worth living. If we are to be a compassionate society, we must reject this path. We must invest instead in palliative care, emotional support, hospice services and the time and presence to walk with people to the very end. In particular, people should be able to be looked after at home. We owe our dying not the offer of an early death but the assurance that they are valued, supported and loved until the very last moment. This Bill cannot promise that. So, with deep respect for all who have spoken on both sides, I cannot support it.