Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, anything I say will probably have been said before, so fortuitously I shall not speak for long, which will please the Government Whips.

On both sides there have been some outstanding speeches over both days, and we can all appreciate that this is hugely complex. People very often tend to speak from their own position, and I have spoken to several older Peers who wanted to be able to die in their own time, so they would support the Bill. I have had innumerable emails and letters from both sides, and I thank the people who sent them. Some were very informative; the majority were opposed to the Bill.

I understand the dilemma. I am already 74 and, should I be terminally ill and suffering, I would wish to be able to take my own opportunity to die—I would probably need to find some poison; of course, that may not work for a handicapped or disabled person who can no longer take a drug—but this does not mean that I support the Bill.

For me, there are two big issues. First, for some reason, society strives far too hard to keep very ill, dying people alive. We shall die, and we must all accept that. As a Christian, I have absolutely no idea if there is an afterlife—perhaps the Bishops might fill me in later—but I do know that I shall die. I hope I can die cleanly and without pain.

Part of the problem is Harold Shipman, over a quarter of a century ago. He was a murderous doctor, and he has prevented what used to be actually quite common: namely, that doctors would increase morphine for very sick, dying patients, which led to their relatively simple and relatively comfortable death—I emphasise “relatively”. The idea that you could prosecute a doctor for assisting an imminent death seems to me rather foolish, but apparently it happens.

We should educate everybody better to understand that death happens and we cannot always cling to life. The Covid experience, where the entire economy and our children’s future was sacrificed because this nasty disease was killing people, most of whom were in their late 70s or more likely over 80, is surely an example of how we should be aware that people will die and that we should accept that.

The second major issue against the Bill relates to coercion. That coercion may be unintended, and an old person can see that continuing life will reduce the prospect of the inheritance of their children. Indeed, the children might easily not wish the elderly parent to die, but the parent might decide that that was best for them. Some 30-odd years ago, I was a new MP, and the Major Government introduced a scheme where people entering care would have to sell their houses to pay for that care—I think I have got that right. This, of course, remains a big issue for Governments. I recall a queue of people coming to my advice session who would say, “But our mother wants us to inherit her house”. I pointed out to them that people save for old age—and I was still re-elected, by the way. However, it is only one small step beyond that to hint, encourage, or push a decaying relative to go for assisted suicide to avoid care home bills.

The Bill is seriously flawed. As many have said, this is an extraordinary change to our law. It changes the general attitude to death and, indeed, to doctors. It changes one of the basic tenets of our society. Suicide was a criminal act until 1961, which was in my lifetime. Now, we are going to change it in my lifetime by allowing assisted suicide—and it is assisting suicide. This will destroy the Hippocratic oath and the maxim, “first, do no harm”. It is being brought forward without the proper consideration that it should certainly have. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee have pointed out huge weaknesses, especially regarding lack of proper regulation and scrutiny. I therefore cannot support the Bill, although I can see the merit of allowing suffering people to die more peacefully.