Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I am one of the two survivors of the Committee on Medical Ethics that reported in 1994, consequent on the case of Anthony Bland. Since then, my views have changed, assisted by the report from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. While some arguments for and against the Bill are finely balanced, it now seems to me that the balance comes down in its favour, and I support it.

The status quo is unacceptable. At present, it is possible irrationally to refuse life-saving treatment, but not possible to pursue an independent, rational request for life-ending treatment. At present, the law allows suicide but can criminalise any compassionate loved ones from whom the person may want or need help. The law cannot be left as it is: discriminating in favour of those who still have the physical ability and finance to travel abroad unaided, while allowing other unregulated, covert and sometimes drastic practices to continue. Opponents of the Bill must consider how much of the existing status quo they wish to continue.

I do not accept the more extreme objections to the Bill. The legislation is indeed not rushed; the topic has been extensively considered in and out of Parliament for years. Ironically, the first Bill rejected by this House in 1936 is said to have failed because the safeguards were too cumbersome. I do not accept speculative, overstated, slippery slope arguments. Good legislation can and should provide firm footholds on any perceived slope through unambiguous drafting, clear and specific safeguards and guidelines—including active oversight—and proper exploration of realistic alternative medical options, including palliative care. Parliament can and should retain control of the focus and clear confines of the new law, and the courts and the Government can be expected to make clear that any further permitted extension of such law should be for Parliament and require primary legislation.

The risk and sources of possible improper pressure by unscrupulous partners or relatives can be discerned and addressed by appropriate regulation and procedures, and by informed assessment of the family’s structure and dynamics and the financial implications. The proposed multidisciplinary panel should have an inquisitorial approach to collect and test the necessary evidence and, where necessary, make factual decisions.

Further consideration should be given to requiring earlier notification to family and carers, and encouraging their participation, if wanted, and requiring disclosure of testamentary arrangements. I would like to see a wider role for the independent advocate, authoritative guidance for vital assessment of capacity and possible protection of anonymity. This Bill was improved in another place; it can be further improved here.

Finally, I would suggest that perhaps the worst possible outcome would be differing laws in different jurisdictional parts of the British Isles.