Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Patel of Bradford Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel of Bradford (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was somewhat hesitant to speak today, not because I do not wish to contribute but because I am currently caring for a loved one, which makes my time in this Chamber unpredictable and, at the same time, makes this Bill so much more important and personal to me. I spent much of my professional life working in the health and social care system, in mental health services and hospitals in the community, working with those who had been misusing drugs or alcohol. I have met people at their most vulnerable, often in pain, sometimes in complete despair, ready to take their lives. I have also seen the extraordinary capacity of compassionate palliative care, skilled pain management and the support of family and friends to transform a person’s final weeks or months.

My own family experience gives me reason to tread carefully. When my brother Krishna was in his late 20s, due to childhood health issues he suffered a series of strokes that were not diagnosed at the time. Over just a few months, he went from being an intelligent, charming and much-loved man to someone unable to speak, eat or care for himself. All the clinicians told us that there was no future for him; it was only a matter of time. Caring for him at home took a terrible toll on my mother, and he was eventually placed in an old people’s home in his early 30s, heavily sedated with drugs for his own good. Years later, by which time I had become a social worker and was convinced that more could be done, Krishna was moved to a specialist Leonard Cheshire home. There, without sedation, with therapy and with love and attentive care, he lived another 20 years. He enjoyed life, saw his son grow into a teenager and formed loving friendships. I sometimes wonder, had this Bill already been law, would he have been given that second chance? The prevailing medical view at the time was very clear: that there was no future for him.

By contrast, I think of my mother, who suffered her third stroke. Even then, A&E waiting times were poor, and she did not receive timely treatment. Her condition deteriorated rapidly in hospital. Consultants told me that her organs were failing and she was suffering greatly. They asked me for a “do not resuscitate” order, and I reluctantly agreed that she should be made comfortable. She was given morphine, never regained consciousness and passed away peacefully three days later. I still live with that decision today. These experiences pull me in different directions. They show me the danger of making assumptions about the quality or length of life someone may yet have. They also remind me that there are circumstances where easing someone’s suffering and allowing a natural, peaceful death is the kindest thing we can do.

In a country as rich in diversity as ours, we cannot ignore the influence of faith, culture and tradition in shaping how people view these questions. For some, life is a sacred gift from God, and only God should decide its end. For others, personal autonomy is central to human dignity. The law must tread carefully to respect both positions without eroding trust in our healthcare and legal systems.

The Bill before us seeks to set out a framework for assisted dying with safeguards, but questions remain unanswered. How can we ensure that safeguards work in practice as well as in theory? How can we guarantee that access to high-quality palliative care is a right for everyone, so that no one chooses assisted dying because they cannot get adequate support? How do we avoid unintended consequences for the most vulnerable: the elderly; those with disabilities; those struggling with mental health or addiction; and those from minority ethnic groups, which we know greatly mistrust the system, and rightly so, and for which there is clear evidence of inequality in care? These questions are not barriers to the debate; they are the debate, and we need time to debate them. That is why I approach this Bill with neither blanket opposition nor uncritical support, but with caution and a desire for evidence. We must look carefully at the experience of other jurisdictions and hear from those most affected: patients, families, and the clinicians who will be asked to make life-ending decisions.

Whatever view we hold today, this conversation will not end with this stage of the Bill. It will and should continue, and our responsibility is to ensure that it continues in a way that is informed by evidence, rooted in compassion and respectful of the dignity and value of every human life.