Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Friday 13th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I just reinforce to the noble Lord that it would be completely wrong to pre-empt the decisions of Parliament—I am sure he is fully aware of that. I just want to give reassurance that, across all these issues, evidence would be considered in the usual way in considering the substances to be used should the Bill pass. I think I have been exceptionally clear on this, and we need to move forward.

Given the size of the group, I reaffirm that it would be impossible to address each amendment specifically, but the broad thematic workability concern is that the use of unclear and ambiguous language could result in unworkable duties and increased risk of legal challenge.

I turn to amendments tabled in relation to the regulation of approved substances and clinical trials. Many of these amendments are policy choices and are therefore a matter for the sponsor and for Parliament. However, noble Lords may wish to note that many of these amendments also introduce new concepts that would require significant work to ensure the policy intent is clearly understood and that they are coherent for the rest of the Bill. I draw noble Lords’ attention to a number of amendments where the Government have major workability concerns.

Amendments 701 and 713, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Hollins, relate to clinical trials for approved substances. First, these amendments could delay implementation of the Bill until a clinical trial or evidence-gathering study is completed, which could make implementation within the four-year timeframe difficult. Noble Lords may wish to be aware that these amendments could create workability concerns relating to the ethical and regulatory challenges for clinical trial processes for approved substances.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

Does the Minister think it is ethical and right to administer drugs that have not been cleared through a normal process and to expedite their use? Surely we have to wait until the drugs have been properly tested.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I do not think it would be appropriate to comment on that level of detail at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

Apologies; I thank the noble Baroness for her clarification on that point. I was mid-sentence, so forgive me if I repeat myself. Limiting the number of manufacturers based on prior prescriptions is operationally impractical and could risk supply shortages.

I turn to Amendment 713A from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. This amendment appears to seek to introduce a parallel approvals regime, but it does not specify how that should relate to the Secretary of State’s separate power.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

I just want to ask the Minister about her response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. She was, I think, saying to the Committee that limiting the places at which you can get the lethal drugs that will be required for death would inhibit the process. I say to her that there are situations in which the supply of medication is limited in exactly that way. Some years ago, I had toxoplasmosis, and the only place the drug could be administered then was Scotland. So it is possible; such systems exist now. I do not quite understand why drugs to treat toxoplasmosis have to be controlled, but the suggestion is that drugs that will kill people do not.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I would be happy to write to the noble Baronesses with clarification on that point; I thank them for their interventions.

As I was saying, Amendment 713A appears to introduce a parallel approvals regime, but it does not specify how that should relate to the Secretary of State’s separate power under Clause 27 to specify the list of approved substances. This could lead to operational uncertainty. Although the amendment could be delivered, establishing a dedicated regulatory pathway would likely require adjustments to the MHRA’s remit and internal processes.

I turn finally to Amendments 887A and 888A from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which would amend Clause 57 by removing the reference to Northern Ireland. This would mean that regulations made under Clause 37 would not extend to or apply in Northern Ireland. As medicines regulations are UK-wide, should this amendment be accepted, it might create legislative divergence across the UK. This does not mean that assisted dying would be legalised in Northern Ireland.

As noble Lords will be aware, many of these amendments have not had technical drafting support from officials. If your Lordships support these amendments, the Government will need to revisit the drafting of amendments and the Bill as a whole to ensure that they are workable and coherent, both internally and with the wider statute book.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I have found some of this discussion quite difficult to compute with my own very limited—non-doctor—experience of end-of-life care and relatives who have been dying. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, spoke as if there was a very binary division between assisted dying care and palliative care. Yet the cases that I have been involved with and seen very closely have been of people very definitely frail and at the end of their lives, and where the range of options they wanted to talk about were not simply pain relief. This whole time, no one has mentioned the right of people to exercise autonomy, to stop eating and starve themselves to death. Does the doctor not consider what happens in those circumstances and talk about options then? There is the option, of course, to turn off life support. There is the option—which my mother chose—to refuse any blood transfusions. Doctors talked her through how that would reduce her life expectancy.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 150, 156, 166 and 205, to which I have put my name, and in support of other amendments in the group.

As drafted, the Bill would permit a discussion about assisted dying with the patient before any requirement to discuss expert palliative care. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that it would be irresponsible not to allow this. In Australia and New Zealand, doctors are not permitted to initiate such discussions.

As drafted—

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

Doctors in Australia are now allowed to do so. The law has been changed there.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

I accept the noble Baroness’s intervention, but they certainly thought it was a bad idea, and there is further discussion in South Australia about the issue.

If I may go on: as drafted, the Bill will permit discussion about assisted dying before discussion about palliative care. It would come as something of a shock—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I think the position was that there was an Act in Victoria, Australia. After the five-year review of the operation of the Act, the Government recommended that the prohibition on raising it be removed as it was found to be impeding access and undermining patient-centred care. The Royal Australian College of GPs welcomed the recommendation as a sensible step and the law was changed.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

I accept that, no problem.

It would come as a shock if a doctor came to one’s bedside and said, “In these circumstances, you may wish to consider an assisted death”. Experience would tell us that a patient might not hear much more of any discussions about treatment and palliative care, given the shock and their already vulnerable state.

Can the Minister explain why the Bill is drafted as it is in this context, permitting a discussion about assisted dying without requiring a previous discussion about palliative care? Can the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, assure your Lordships that there will be a genuine choice?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will know that Clause 5 specifically says that if a registered medical practitioner raises the question of assisted death, he

“must explain to and discuss with that person … all appropriate palliative, hospice or other care”

that is available. It says:

“Accordingly, such a preliminary discussion may not be conducted in isolation”


of, among other things, palliative care. I am not sure of the basis on which the noble Baroness is saying that that should come before rather than at the same time.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

I am saying that it should come before, because Clause 5, as drafted and as the noble and learned Lord read it out to the Committee, says it is to be part of a discussion about assisted death. I suggest to the Committee that if a doctor mentions assisted death, that will focus one’s mind in a way that may cause distress, shock and all sorts of things.

There is another problem: the issue of the doctor raising the issue despite the fact that the patient has given no indication that he wants to talk about it. The Bill is said to be a matter of autonomy, but it cannot be denied that there is an unequal relationship between the patient and the doctor. Doctors are perceived as knowing and acting in the interests of the patient. Under the constitution of the National Health Service, it is provided:

“It is there to improve our health and wellbeing, supporting us to keep mentally and physically well, to get better when we are ill and, when we cannot fully recover, to stay as well as we can to the end of our lives”.


Even where a patient may have autonomy, were a doctor to initiate a discussion about assisted dying, he or she would fundamentally undermine patient autonomy. Offering assisted suicide is not the same as offering palliative care, cancer treatment or any other care. These are all directed to the treatment of a living person. Assisted suicide is about killing the person.

When doctors raise assisted suicide or assisted dying, patients may interpret this as an implicit recommendation or, indeed, a judgment about the value of their life, not a neutral option. That undermines agency. A choice influenced by authority, fear or deference is not a free choice. There is a huge risk of a doctor exercising undue influence and exposing patients to pressure at the most vulnerable point in their lives. I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, acknowledge that doctors hold exceptional authority over patients. He should reflect on that.

The solution to these problems, as in Amendments 150, 151 and 154, is to amend Clause 5 to provide that there would be no discussion with the patient until the patient says that they want the discussion. Amendment 156 would delete Clause 5(2) and is consistent with the other amendments. Amendments 159 and 160 would clarify the meaning of the Bill to state specifically what is to be discussed: the death of the person sitting or lying in a bed before the doctor, not any other matter. All these amendments would bring clarity and additional protection.

Amendments 157 and 164 would protect the patient even further by providing that, where a person has told their GP they do not want a discussion about assisted dying, this should be recorded in their notes. That should provide an audit trail of the wish of the patient. This must then be complied with by any registered medical practitioner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

Am I right in understanding that the noble Baroness’s amendments are designed to achieve a situation where someone experiences and receives the best palliative care before the discussion takes place? Otherwise, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has said, any choice that you exercise could be illusory, unless you are in that situation.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her helpful intervention.

There is a further problem. As drafted, there is nothing to prevent any other health professional—a nurse, health visitor or physio—raising assisted dying with a patient. Sometimes, patients form stronger relationships with these people than with doctors because they see more of them. It is essential, therefore, that there is no possibility of a warm-up conversation being initiated by a professional to ease the ground for the doctor when he wants to make his approach. It may be said that this would not happen, but we have seen ample evidence of situations in which cost savings to be secured by freeing up beds and ending treatment are regarded as justification for assisted death. We have, of course, seen situations in which a person who has suffered an amputation or has a terminal cancer seeks a wheelchair and is told the waiting list is two years, but that assisted dying can be provided tomorrow. Any situation in which assisted dying is discussed for the first time must be strictly patient initiated, tightly confined and take place through a clearly defined process.

Amendment 205, to which I put my name, as well as Amendments 207 and 207A and other amendments in the group, would prevent any discussion about assisted suicide with a person who has a learning difficulty or autism without a family member, guardian or independent person present. The effect of this would be to do what all professionals and caring organisations do when dealing with or engaging with people with such disabilities. I also support Amendments 317, 346, 457 and 512 in this group, which seek to protect those who experience feelings of suicidal ideation, which may be transient.

What about the doctors? The MDU, which represents over 200,000 healthcare professionals, is deeply concerned about the proposals in the Bill. The MDU points out that the position whereby doctors are not required to raise this but are still permitted to do so is the worst of both worlds for doctors because they would be liable to complaints in either situation. If the doctor does not raise it, a complaint can be made against them for not having done so; if they do raise it, a complaint can be made against them. As the MDU points out:

“Such proceedings can take a vast toll on doctors. The time taken; the emotional toll; the procedural concerns. This cannot be overstated”.


This is one of the many unintended consequences emanating from this clause as drafted. The clause requires substantial amendment to make it safe.

There seems to me to be a whole range of circumstances that you would want a doctor to be able to talk to the patient about. It is not simply, “We can offer you a way”, and they only talk to you and say, “This is the palliative care available, and only if you have heard that, seen it and chosen from it can we then talk to you about something different, which is assisting your death”. It seems to me—

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

As I understand it, the noble Baroness is talking about various possible options. Would she think it a good idea if the doctor were free to advise the patient to stop eating?

--- Later in debate ---

Only the massive advocacy of a powerful network of noble Lords and noble friends managed to save my noble friend’s life. However, the Bill would allow very similar situations: options constrained by NHS failure, government decisions not to fund treatment or just logistics. Any doctor could raise the option, explain that nothing else can be done and ask immediately whether they want to sign the declaration for the first assessment, or arrange for someone else to. They would put them on the conveyor belt to the second assessment seven days later, which would be followed immediately by the panel, with the reflection period reduced to 48 hours. That is a timeline of just nine days to save your loved one, who has been told that there is no other option.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to clarify something that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said in response to my statement that assisted dying was not something that doctors could suggest in Australia. The website of the Department of Health, Victoria, states:

“It is against the law for a medical or other health practitioner to suggest voluntary assisted dying as an end of life option to one of their patients. A medical practitioner cannot talk about voluntary assisted dying unless a person asks them about it first”.


If I can take noble Lords to New Zealand—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Before the noble Baroness references New Zealand, I was saying that that was the position. There was then a five-year review in Victoria and the law was changed.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

It has not changed on the Government’s contemporaneous website. If I go to New Zealand, it says that the doctor cannot advise or discuss assisted dying with you unless you ask for it first. Those are both government websites today. I accept that there may be changes due and that they may come, but they are not there, as far as I can see.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, when a doctor, the very person entrusted to preserve life and relieve suffering, raises the possibility of assisted dying, it is no longer a neutral act. For some people, particularly those who are depressed, isolated or overwhelmed, the mere introduction of the possibility of an assisted death risks planting the idea that this course is rational or even expected. In an inherently unequal doctor-patient relationship, suggestion is easily perceived as a recommendation.

There is no requirement for an independent advocate—somebody to sit beside the patient and help them process and grasp what is being said. We are leaving some of the most consequential conversations a person can ever have to take place in isolation, within an asymmetrical, authoritarian relationship. There is no requirement for the discussion to take place with someone with specialist expertise. A “registered medical practitioner” could be a locum doctor who the patient has never met before, a foundation-year doctor in their early years of practice, or someone with no training in palliative care or experience of autism or learning disabilities, and yet they are the people who may introduce a conversation that could seriously alter the trajectory of a life.

No clinician should be allowed to initiate such a conversation; it should arise only if a patient independently raises it themselves, and even then the doctor’s role should be limited to acknowledging the request and directing the patient to an independent body while remaining firmly focused on diagnosis, treatment and the provision of appropriate and timely palliative care, as needed. Assisted dying must not be presented as an equivalent option alongside treatment, support and comfort. To do so risks the medical service being seen as one that no longer values preserving and improving life but rather one that enables the end of life.

The Royal College of GPs has stated that the role of a GP should be limited to signposting patients to a designated specialist service if, and only if, the patient raises the subject. This week, the Royal College of Psychiatrists wrote to me expressing its continuing concern. Its view is that

“all applicants should receive a holistic, multidisciplinary assessment at the preliminary discussion stage, including for mental health needs”;

in other words, something much more like the multidisciplinary panel proposed by my noble friend Lady Finlay in the previous group. I therefore suggest that Clause 5, and, in consequence, Clause 6, should not stand part of the Bill.