Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I support the Bill. Much has changed in the many years that your Lordships’ House has been debating assisted dying for the terminally ill, but public support for it has been constant. The British Social Attitudes survey has found around 80% in favour and 20% against consistently for the past 30 years. Your Lordships’ House should certainly not be a slavish follower of public opinion, but noble Lords should at least hesitate before saying that this House knows better than the pretty settled view of the vast majority of the public, especially now that the other place is aligned.

I support the Bill because it respects personal choice and autonomy. However good medical care may be, it is a fact that it does not always cope with the physical and mental suffering associated with terminal illness. Terminally ill people have choices at present beyond accepting the medical treatment on offer. They can choose to refuse medical treatment, they can choose to refuse hydration and nutrition, and they can also commit suicide, but these are rotten choices usually associated with an unpleasant death. This Bill gives another choice to people facing certain death: the possibility, or indeed the likelihood, of a peaceful death.

I completely accept that there are dangers for those who are unable to make rational choices or who are pressured to make choices that they do not want to make. That is why the Bill is so complicated. The Bill goes out of its way to try to ensure that choice is genuine. I am sure that we will debate in Committee whether further safeguards are needed, but I hope that noble Lords will accept that there will never be a way of eliminating all risks without in practice denying choice to those for whom the Bill is designed. That is why I think that, in many ways, the most important parts of the Bill are those relating to the commissioner and to monitoring and review of the Act. If problems emerge, they will be reported, and they can be acted on. That is an important safeguard in the Bill.

Lastly, while I respect the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in this instance, it has gone a little bit too far. Secondary legislation and Henry VIII clauses are not the devil incarnate; they are often the most effective ways of getting the details right on a sustainable basis to deal with how things evolve over time. I hope that our approach to delegated powers and indeed to the whole of the Bill as it moves through the remaining stages will be pragmatic, and that we will not let the best become the enemy of the good.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 14th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this issue was well discussed in the Select Committee, and I want to refer to Professor Sir Chris Whitty, who I think knows a little bit about this. I want also to respond to and endorse the words of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, because she talked about concentrating on the interests of the person concerned. They were not exactly her words, but she was saying how important that was. We are talking here about someone who is dying. They are in the last months of their lives and, under the Bill, they must have capacity throughout the stage for which this legislation will provide. In other words, at each stage, they must have capacity. Professor Sir Chris Whitty, who knows a lot about this, spoke on it—it is on page 153 of the committee’s report, if anyone would like to look. He said:

“There is plenty of evidence, and it goes with common sense, that, when people use an existing system that they have used for many years, that they are used to and that has been tested in the courts, they are far more likely to be able to follow a reproducible and sensible pattern of making decisions than if they are faced with a completely new approach which they have not used previously and in which there may well be legal ambiguities the courts have not yet adjudicated on”.


If we want this Bill to work, as I assume the House of Commons did when it sent it to us, and as I think a majority of this House does, we must give to doctors and everyone else a form of words that they already understand, they can use and, above all, what is in the best interests of the patient in front of them.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I am a little confused about this debate. The debate is on Amendment 2, which would replace “capacity” with “ability”, but we have heard hardly anything about ability. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who said that it would replace a defined term with an undefined term, which is an issue we should take seriously, but most of the debate has been about whether the definition of “capacity” in this Bill—that in the Mental Capacity Act—is the right one to use. We are not debating whether “ability” is a better term; I hope that we can do that and move on to some other important areas in this Bill.

[Baroness Cass (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as trustee of a children’s hospice. I also talk as a retired doctor with experience of looking after terminally ill adults and children. However, I also talk as somebody who is pretty familiar with conflict and polarisation, having been attacked and undermined on social media. I know that everyone in this Committee is committed to improving this Bill, and so I was somewhat dismayed by the article in the Times, which I felt led to the targeting, unfairly, of some of my noble friends who have been committed to improving this Bill and have been working hard to do so. I am not sure what the objective of that was, but it is regrettable.

People have asked about ability per se, so I talk now as a developmental paediatrician. We generally talk about abilities as skills that we acquire, whether it is a baby learning to walk or talk, or other skills that are more sophisticated. The skill that allows us to make reasoned judgment is the development of what is called the executive function—I am sure that noble Lords are all aware of that. That sits in the frontal lobe of our brains. As we well know, teenagers are pretty ill developed in that respect: they can talk with great authority about why it is extremely dangerous to drive too fast and break the speed limits and be very convincing on how they understand that and then, the next day, do exactly that, particularly under peer pressure. That judgment is something that develops but can also be lost, as we well understand, when somebody sustains a head injury or maybe has a brain metastasis that impacts that area, or during dementia; our judgment deteriorates.

The word “ability” allows us to think about people who might never develop that ability because of a problem in executive function, which is common in some people with autism. They may be well able to repeat what they have read online or heard from peers, but they have not fully understood and processed it. Some people with autism are of course well able to make those judgments and some are not: it is complicated, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, and there is perhaps an unwarranted confidence in doctors’ abilities to do that. It is very much a multidisciplinary team effort and one that requires somebody who knows the person well, or maybe multiple assessments. This is complex and “ability” encompasses a wider facet than capacity alone.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 20th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I want to make a few points following the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. First, she referred to MND and the problem with some people who appear to live quite a lot longer than expected. The real problem with MND is that these patients almost certainly will not qualify to be classified as terminally ill under the Bill. The speed of progression of the disease usually means that getting a six-month diagnosis is almost impossible, so motor neurone disease patients will find it very difficult to fit themselves within this. This is, I think, widely acknowledged.

Secondly, all this discussion has been based on the prognosis given by a doctor to his patient. The Bill requires it to be established that the individual is terminally ill for assisted dying to be available. That decision must be made by the first doctor, the second doctor and the panel. These are not doctors giving informal indications to their patients about the amount of time they may have left to live; these are people having to come to a professional judgment. Of course, if they cannot agree on that professional judgment, the decision will not be that an assisted death can be given. It seems that, in the context in which the prognosis is given—that is, to satisfy the definition of “terminally ill” in this Bill—there are many safeguards that would mean that we have a relatively safe definition of six months by the time all those who are involved in the process agree it.

[Baroness Cass (CB)]

My Lords, on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the person or people who will make the best judgment about prognosis will be the treating team: the treating doctor and the multiprofessional team. I have always been somewhat dubious about how much those successive doctors can add to prognosis, as they will not be specialists in the area. I just make that point.

I am always gratified but slightly alarmed at the faith that noble Lords place in doctors. It was not always what I experienced in practice, when many of my patients arrived with an internet search knowing more than I did about the condition, especially as I worked somewhere where we often saw young people with rare disorders.

A number of things are getting conflated in this debate. When a previously young, fit person walks through the door with a cancer diagnosis, there will be a series of trials and data on the prognosis for that age group with that diagnosis. Then it narrows down as there are the specific features for that individual. Then they start treatment and, as the treatment goes along, your prognosis gets more individualised as they do or do not respond to the treatments they are being given. Ultimately, it may become clear to the treating team that that person is no longer responding to treatments, and it becomes a very individualised prognosis at that point. So although you may start off with statistics, which are very broad, you end up giving the best advice about what you see before your eyes—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said—in relation to how that patient is responding to treatment and how they are doing.

The further complication that stops you depending entirely on the papers that you have just read is where that person started off with diabetes, heart failure or a series of other complications. There just is not specific data for that complex of conditions that the patient may have, so it will be significantly dictated by clinical judgment, ideally by the whole multiprofessional team. We need to distinguish people with a clear cancer diagnosis, where there is lots of data, from people who have a mix of the more usual things that we see in the elderly population: cardiac problems, respiratory problems, diabetes, Parkinson’s—a whole complex of things. It then becomes, again, something that you cannot refer to in a textbook but something that you see in the state of progression of that person’s symptoms and their reducing response to treatment. I should sit down at this point, as I should not proceed further when my noble friend can speak to this with much greater authority.