Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Browne of Belmont Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, like many in this House, I have always opposed a change in the law to allow for assisted dying. I understand the sincere motivations of those who desire to change the law, and I have listened to the many eloquent speeches given by Peers across the House in favour of the change.

However, I have never been convinced by the idea that such a law would be the right way forward. I continue to believe that this is not the path we should go down. In addition, I strongly agree with the concerns expressed by many noble Lords that such a serious issue has been introduced using the Private Member’s Bill process and thus has received such scant scrutiny.

We are making life and death decisions today on this Bill. As we do so, it behoves us to listen to the authoritative medical voices publishing their views on this issue as the conversation on assisted dying has proceeded and the Bill has been developed. Several professional organisations have made statements on this legislation. It is not just one medical association that has given us a warning, which we might be tempted to discount as an outlier; at least five organisations have done so.

First, the Royal College of Physicians said that

“there currently remain deficiencies that would need addressing to achieve adequate protection of patients and professionals”.

The RCP is neutral on the principle of this Bill but has warned that it is essential to consider the current Bill—and decisions that patients may make—in the current context of the NHS and healthcare in England and Wales, especially the access to and availability and equity of services for people who may be terminally ill.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists was even more explicit when it said it could not support the Bill in its current form. It highlights that:

“The Mental Capacity Act does not provide a framework for assessing decisions about ending one’s own life … It is not clear what a psychiatrist’s role on a multidisciplinary panel would be”,


and that:

“Terminal illness is a risk factor for suicide”.


I believe we need to take note of these important points.

Secondly, the Royal College of Physicians joined forces with the Royal College of Psychiatrists on 12 June to warn this House again about the impact of the Bill. They expressed concerns about safeguarding and fears that the NHS workforce does not currently have the resource required to meet these additional demands.

Thirdly, the Royal College of Pathologists said that it could not support the Bill, and that

“deaths following assisted dying should be notified to the coroner, just as other deaths following the administration of drugs, prescribed or not, must be”.

Clause 38 does not line up with the advice of the Royal College of Pathologists.

Fourthly, in June the British Geriatrics Society highlighted that:

“There are inadequate safeguards to protect older people from harm”.


Fifthly, and finally, the National Down Syndrome Policy Group added its name to those concerned about the impact of the Bill on individuals with Down’s syndrome and learning disability.

We are repeatedly told that this Bill is the safest in the world. Our medical professionals and organisations caring for those affected by the Bill are warning us that it falls well short. This is not the right Bill to protect patients. I hope noble Lords across this House will take those warnings to heart today; we should not be coerced into believing that we must pass such flawed legislation.