Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Carlile of Berriew

Committee stage
Friday 20th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, “All’s Well That Ends Well”, and it is always a pleasure to follow such a story, particularly as it is the story of someone who told it to your Lordships himself.

I put my name to the noble Lord’s amendment and intend to address it not from the viewpoint of positivity and negativity—I tend to view that as mostly potluck— but from the viewpoint of facts. The fact I start with is an assumption: that everybody who is given a prognosis by his or her doctor desires to make an informed decision and, if they wish to make such an informed decision, that it should be based on some factual and scientific basis. All that these amendments would do —I speak not particularly to their very words but to their meaning—is require that a doctor or any other clinician who is giving a prognosis should do so on a solid medical and scientific basis: a prognosis that is founded in medicine, not stories and the last three patients they happen to have seen who had a serious illness.

I have spent a lot of time in recent weeks reading articles. There are some amazing American articles in which huge statistical samples are taken, but on this subject they all come to a similar position. For example, in one major study, only about 20% of predictions of six-month deaths were within a close range at all of ultimate survival. This is a very unscientific part of what clinicians tell their patients.

Judging the moment of death becomes very difficult the further you are away from the actual death, but it is very difficult to know how far away you are from the actual death. When my father—who was the most reasonable person I have ever known, by the way—was dying, the night before he died, the last thing he said to me was that I was to wear his black suit for the funeral because he thought mine was scruffy. He and I had been the same size at a certain point in our lives, and of course I did. We knew the moment he said that—because I knew how ill he was, the family were there, the doctor was there, we were going through his last moments and it was a very happy death, a great family deathbed scene—that he would be dead by the following day. He died the following morning.

However, when someone walks into the consulting room like the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and is told that he is seriously ill, it is just an opinion at that stage on the part of the doctor, who may have varied experience and may actually have no scientific basis for what he or she is saying. Even what is now called GEST, the geriatric end-of-life screening tool, which uses algorithms and has tens of thousands of examples in it, still offers only varying levels of probability. I have also looked at actuarial tables because a surprising number of elderly and very ill people try to insure their lives for a relatively short period. A lot of companies insure senior directors for one year; I think it is called key person insurance. It is all based on mathematics, but it is not actually science.

So I do not think it is asking much of the noble and learned Lord that there should be a provision in the Bill that means that, in every single case when the patient asks for an informed decision, he or she is given the basis upon which that information is founded.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord who moved the amendment is in remission from his cancer. On other Bills we wish he was in remission from his political views, but on this one we celebrate with him.

I used to run a cancer charity, and the truth is that on this issue not everyone is using statistics. Doctors are often using their eyes; when we are talking about the last weeks it is their eyes, rather than going to any statistical table, that will tell them. There is an assumption that all this is going to be based statistically on the six-month period, but it is not like that. My own guess is that most people who are dying will probably start thinking about this only at three months. Tonight I am going to be dining with a recent widower. His wife—a very well-known author but it does not matter who she was—had cancer. She fought it, but fighting it is not enough. It was only really in the last weeks that she realised that what she wanted was help in those weeks. It was at that point that she tried to get to Switzerland, but by then it was too late.

My judgment is that much of this, for many of the patients who will be asking for this, will be very much towards the end. I will be surprised if at that point the doctor is going to their statistical tables, because at that stage the patient’s age and underlying health and other factors will contribute as much to assessing whether it is going to be days, weeks or maybe a month as the particular type of cancer that they have. This attempt to make that process overscientific is probably not right, and we should have faith, which some people in this House do not seem to have, in doctors.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Carlile of Berriew

Committee stage
Friday 21st November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

If I could just finish. It has been a long time in this debate without hearing from my side—I want to come on to something that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said anyway.

The amendments to this Bill are about coercion or pressure. As stated by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the situation at the moment is that people can go to Dignitas without even proving to a doctor that they are dying, and without any check as to whether there is coercion or pressure, or whether someone is going to inherit their house. They can go, and that is the way they end their life, and they feel it is not worth living any longer. On the definition of coercion, are we really content with continuing the status quo where there is absolutely no check—from a psychiatrist, a social worker, a lawyer, or anyone else—on whether they have been coerced? That is the alternative: allowing the status quo to continue with no checks whatever.

We have to ask, therefore, whether these discussions about definition are really about that, or whether they are about trying to stop the Bill. Perhaps we could discuss whether those who want the wording changed would then support the Bill. If they would, let us get down to discussing that, but if they are never going to, they are wasting the time of those who want it to go through.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I was not suggesting wasting time. I was asking whether, if these changes were agreed, people would then allow the Bill to proceed.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I have great admiration for her, but I and many others resent her waving her hands at us. The reason we wish to have the sorts of discussions that I was mentioning was so that, believe it or not, we can make a judgment as to whether we are prepared to support the Bill, or to be silent on whether we support the Bill, or to oppose it at Third Reading. It is unworthy of the noble Baroness to allege that all of us here who are expressing concerns are wasting time. It is not true, and it is what she said.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I never said that about wasting time. The words did not come; I did not say them. I was asking whether the people who want a better definition will then be able to support the Bill.