Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Taylor of Warwick Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I found the dignified words of my noble friend Lord Shinkwin to be most powerful and persuasive. He used the phrase “Pandora’s box”, and I too oppose this Bill.

It is said that one of the lessons of history is that we do not learn lessons from history, so we must learn lessons from the history of this important matter. One can only have compassion for those who are in so much pain and suffering that they wish to end their lives, but supporters of this Bill say that this is a matter of choice. I question that, because assisted dying would not be a real choice if the alternative option of high-quality end-of-life palliative care is not available.

This Bill is based on assessing someone as being within six months of natural death, but such a prognosis is often unreliable. I still recall that awful time when a hospital doctor asked for my permission to turn off the machine that was basically keeping my mother alive. I was aware of the fact that her church and her family were praying for her, so I said no. The doctor said, “Well, that is your choice”. She went on to live for several years longer, enjoying her family, and in particular her grandchildren. As that doctor said to me some years later, “Wow: it was a miracle. There must be power in prayer”. I said, “Yes, that’s right”. Those who accept a time limit of six months now to get the Bill passed could come back again in a few years’ time to shorten or even remove a time limit.

I believe that this Bill lacks genuine safeguards for vulnerable people. There is no longer judicial oversight, namely, that a High Court judge should approve assisted suicide. I use the word “suicide” not to cause offence, but because this is really what it is. The original key safeguard has been replaced. Psychiatrists and social workers, who are to be included in the panel system, have warned that there are not enough of them to fill this role.

Unfortunately, there are very well-meaning and experienced social workers who miss the abuse of children and babies, and yet this Bill seeks to put even more pressure on that profession. Evidence from countries where assisted suicide is legal and available, such as Canada, New Zealand and the Netherlands, indicates that there is likely to be a move from assisted suicide for the terminally ill only, to those with other health conditions.

The National Health Service is already under huge pressure, struggling to meet targets. This Bill would put even more pressure on the NHS at precisely the wrong time. As the Health Secretary Wes Streeting MP has said:

“If parliament chooses to go ahead with assisted dying, it is making a choice that this is an area to prioritise for investment”.


These choices would come at the expense of other choices. Surely the investment should be in better palliative care for the terminally ill in hospices or care homes, ensuring a better quality of life in the last years, months or days.

In the Bible there were five characters in particular who contemplated suicide: Hannah, Elijah, Job, David and Jonah. But in each case, even during the anguish of their suffering, they eventually found that the God who created them gave them a reason to continue living until the natural time for their death. I oppose this Bill. The first duty of government is to protect its people, not to give the state licence to kill its people.

Prostate Cancer

Lord Taylor of Warwick Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mott, for securing this important debate. One of the lessons of history is that we do not learn lessons from history, and we must not ignore the historical facts. First, prostate cancer is the most diagnosed cancer in men aged over 45 in England. Secondly, there are higher risks of prostate cancer linked to ageing, black men and family history. Thirdly, early diagnosis is critical. Survival is nearly 100% when detected early but drops to around 50% at stage 4. Yet one in five men—that is 10,000 annually—is still diagnosed too late. Fourthly, despite these facts and earlier warning signs, there is still no UK-wide screening programme. So my first question of the Minister is: what analysis of other nations’ prostate cancer treatment is the Government carrying out, and have they come to any conclusions as to the way forward for the UK?

Next, will the Minister set out what action the Government will take to ensure that higher-risk men who request a PSA test are never refused, in line with current policy? What conclusions have the Government reached as to the most effective method of PSA screening as a result of the TRANSFORM trial launched in May of last year? Bearing in mind the reluctance of some men to submit themselves to rectal examinations, what assessment have the Government made of the BARCODE 1 study on the early detection of prostate cancer using saliva samples to identify high-risk patients? Lastly, when will the UK National Screening Committee announce the conclusions and recommendations of the TRANSFORM trial? A national screening programme for men at high risk of prostate cancer is long overdue. National screening will radically improve the fate of prostate before it is too late.