Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lizzi Collinge and Rosie Duffield

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rosie Duffield]

Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution and her considerable experience in this area.

We hear a lot about coercion. Those with learning disabilities are surely extremely vulnerable to that, as well as the elderly and people with dementia. Before my dad lost the ability to speak, he could absolutely have presented as being capable of signing on the dotted line to medical professionals who did not know him like the family did. In reality, he would have forgotten almost immediately what had just taken place, but he retained an ability to be jovial, and to mask his confusion and memory issues, for quite some time.

As for the slippery slope, every single example in other nations proves without a doubt that at the start, the intention may be that assisted dying legislation will apply only to terminal illness—dementia and Alzheimer’s are, of course, terminal—but the scope ends up expanding alarmingly, as it has done in Canada, and in the Netherlands, which is so much closer to home.

[Lizzi Collinge]

I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that the law in Canada was brought in after a Supreme Court judgment, whereas our Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights have repeatedly refused to rule on this, saying quite rightly that it is a matter for Parliament. Does she accept that this jurisdiction is different, and that this is a matter for Parliament, and can be changed only by Parliament?

[Rosie Duffield]

We talk a lot about Canada, but the Netherlands is practically next door to my constituency and has a democracy very similar to ours. People in their 20s have been allowed to take this path there, which is absolutely shocking. Mental ill health, and even solvable temporary social problems, have entered the fray in those other nations; I am talking about depression and homelessness. There are young people opting to end their life. Those in favour of this Bill may dismiss that as scaremongering, but it happens in one of our neighbouring democracies.

One of our most powerful speakers here, the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), this week hosted Alicia Duncan, whose story featured in “Better Off Dead?”. Her mother was put on the Canadian MAID—medical assistance in dying—system’s track 1, which is for those who have a terminal health diagnosis, despite her not having one. Alicia’s family believes that she was essentially coerced, through an abusive relationship, and her children were not able to prevent her death. These horrifying cases may seem isolated, but there are many, many more stories, trust me, that did not make the final cut of the documentary—stories not told to anyone. We make laws based on worst-case scenarios every single week, so why is this Bill so almost uniquely optimistic?

If we have any doubt, we must vote against this Bill today. It does not mean that we believe that the principles of it are entirely wrong, but I urge colleagues to listen to disabled activists like Liz Carr, Tanni Grey-Thompson and Jane Campbell, and experts in palliative care in the other place, such as Ilora Finlay and Professor Katherine Sleeman. I ask them to please vote against this Bill if they have any doubt.