Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, my phone is ringing—I have to sling it away from me. This is very embarrassing—I am so sorry. I will start again; can the clock start again? I have lost 12 seconds to that intrusion.

As with my noble friend Lord Rees and as with many Peers in this Chamber, I have received lots of communications on the Bill, both in the post and by email. In my case, every one of these communications—except the paper by the sponsors of this Bill, which I hold in my hand—was against the Bill. I did not count them all, but there must be up to 50. Although we are an unelected Chamber, I believe we should take note of these representations that we have received.

I therefore thought that I should give the Bill careful study. I found it thoughtful and well drafted. It is readable and comprehensible—quite a change from every other Bill that is now descending on this House. It provides safeguards on the proposed assisted dying. There is also the appointment of the assisted dying commissioner and the assisted dying review panels. It carries a number of helpful stipulations and goes right to what should be discussed with the patient, and it deals with other safeguards. Importantly, it defines who is entitled to apply for assisted dying. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer covered this in his opening remarks, and I therefore draw attention only to the crucial one, which is that the patient has to be terminally ill, with the prospect of death within six months.

However, these provisions do not cover those with neurological disorders. I refer to multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease, muscular dystrophy and advanced Parkinson’s. These are all terrible diseases, where the patient loses all control of their body movement, but they have no direct expectation of death. I could also refer, like the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, to those who have severe spinal injury. One of my sons received a very serious spinal injury and went to Stoke Mandeville. There I met a rugby player—he must have been 18 or 20 years old—who had quadriplegic injury right up to his neck, with no movement of his body. I am told that he wanted to go to Dignitas in Switzerland. I do not know whether he ever went there, but I can say that he felt he had no future in life.

My concern about the Bill, if passed, is that inevitably its terms will be extended. That is exactly what has happened in Belgium, the Netherlands and the US state of Oregon, all of which have had assisting dying legislation for over 20 years. One can expect the lowering of the age from 18 years and the inclusion of many more who do not have terminal illness. The prospects for extending this Bill are never-ending.

This brings me to a moral position and a practical position. The moral position is that no doctor should ever be asked to kill his patient. The practical position relates to palliative care: the Bill overrides the wonderful work of palliative care in providing every help to a dying patient. That brings me to oppose the Bill.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 23rd January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

First, the noble Baroness is absolutely right when she says that, at that stage, no step can be taken by the doctor to kill the patient, as it were, because this is about the patient doing it. They will have to discuss it, and a whole variety of measures could be taken by a doctor in the face of complications. It is impossible for me to indicate in relation to every complication but, pursuant to Clause 12(2)(d), that is what must be discussed with the patient—subject to the important point, on which we both agree, that the doctor cannot kill.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Next business.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

What would happen if they were taken to court in a medical negligence case? Let us take the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, where they had not explained graphically to someone who may not speak or understand English what could happen if there were a complication, but a graphic explanation was needed; otherwise, they might have failed medically to do their job.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

If they failed medically to do their job, they might be liable to a civil suit, but it is impossible to answer that question without specific facts. This Bill is placing on doctors and panels the duty to make sure that the consent to assisted dying is properly informed. If a doctor fails in that respect, you might have a situation where, for example, the thing should not have been done in the first place or was done inadequately. That might give rise to a civil suit but it does not really go to the question of whether we need to put a heavier burden, in terms of giving information, in the Bill; with respect, I think that the burden in the Bill is sufficient.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Next business.