Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Moore of Etchingham and Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Committee stage
Friday 24th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

I begin by making apology to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. When I was shouting to be heard, I did not realise that she was standing. I apologise for that.

I would like to bring the debate back to the question of the process and remind us that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, when moving his amendment, began by talking about the pressure of public opinion. It is obviously a very important subject—and it has been in relation to that that much of this debate has taken place. I took part in a debate with the noble and learned Lord before the Bill came to this House, which was published in the Spectator. At the time he said that

“opinion polls shouldn’t determine whether or not parliament passes this. People should look at the details of how the thing works and say whether or not we can improve it”.

That is what we have been doing. It is not right to say that everybody has just kept on expressing their own views.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The point that has been made repeatedly in this House is that public opinion is in favour of this Bill and the Commons has passed it. Therefore, we have a duty to get through our business. Does the noble Lord agree?

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

I accept that that is the argument made by the noble and learned Lord. However, the argument I am trying to make here in a limited time is about public opinion and its effect and how we should regard it. When the noble Lord, Lord Barber, said that we have a privilege here, he was right, but I think that he was criticising the privilege in the wrong way. We must exercise that privilege because, unlike most people in this country, we have been able to consider the Bill at great length. We owe it to those people to consider it seriously and to consider all its elements and effects.

I can just testify for myself—because I am not an expert on the subject—but I have learned a tremendous amount in these discussions. I understood the broad arguments of principle before these discussions, but I have just re-read the Explanatory Notes that the noble and learned Lord and others issued about the Bill when it began. The three words “National Health Service” hardly appear in them. This was the big revelation to me and, I think, to many people. It is a matter not just of what you deeply believe about this very important issue—choice versus wider sanctity of life and so on—but of what will happen to the most important public service in this country and all the ramifications of that.

It is quite wrong to speak of a small minority of people who have been constantly agitating within the House. I do not know who those people are, but I know that many noble Lords on both sides, certainly on the side that is critical of the Bill, are very learned people on the subject of the effects on the National Health Service—for example, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Cass and Lady Hollins. It is very important that they be heard and understood.

I sometimes think the Bill would be clearer if it were entitled the Terminally Ill Adults National Health Service (Assisted Suicide) Bill, because it is not just about assisted suicide. It is about how it would be carried out. It would be carried out by the National Health Service in almost all cases, so we need to debate its costs, its professional conflicts and all the difficult questions that arise. We have been doing that.

I come back, therefore, in justification of what we have all, on both sides, been trying to do. This is described accurately as a conscience Bill. If you have a conscience about something, you must be confident that the result will be safe. If it is not, how could you possibly not object to it? How could you just say, “Oh, well, there we are”? I do not think you can. In his opening remarks, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that the Bill has not failed on its merits, and I agree with him. It has failed on its demerits, and it is those that many of us cannot in conscience support.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Moore of Etchingham and Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Committee stage
Friday 23rd January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

First of all, there is absolutely no need to apologise for not being a lawyer; some of my best friends are non-lawyers. Secondly, this very thing was very closely considered, hence the provision in the Bill to say that, if there are complications, let us try to agree in advance what we should do. We will not, I am sure, be able to cover every complication, hence the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. The answer is clear and beyond doubt—hence the reference to the need to address the question of complications—that the doctor should do what the doctor is always obliged to do, which is to save life.

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

Forgive me if I have misunderstood the noble and learned Lord, but what about the situation in which the patient does not die, is conscious and says, “I still want to die”? What is the doctor supposed to do at that point?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The doctor cannot administer a substance. It has to be done by the patient, because the doctor has no right to kill. If the patient is saying, “No intervention”, then there will be no intervention at that particular point. The key thing about this is that it is assisting somebody to take their own life.

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

The patient could say, if capable of action after having woken up from taking the poison, “I want more poison, give me some”. If that happened, what would the doctor’s duty be?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

If the person said, “I will take more poison”, then the person can do that. It is perfectly permissible.