Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Abena Oppong-Asare Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

Before I begin, I declare an interest as a patron of my local hospice, Community hospice. I want to be clear from the outset that I am not opposed to assisted dying in principle; I understand why many people support a change in the law, and I recognise the compassion that motivates those views. However, today I will set out why I remain unable to support this Bill.

This debate evokes deeply held views across the House. I respect my colleagues who have reached a different conclusion, but the question that has troubled me throughout remains the same: can a choice ever be truly free if the support, care and dignity that people deserve are not equally available to all? Through my work with my local hospice, I have seen at first hand what excellent end-of-life care can achieve. I have seen dignity, comfort and compassion, and I have seen how much those final months, weeks and days can mean to individuals and families. That experience leaves me convinced of one thing: dignity at the end of life is possible, and it is our challenge to make it available to everyone.

I have listened carefully to constituents on all sides of this debate. One constituent wrote to me about caring for both her husband and her former partner after they were diagnosed with terminal cancer. Both were told that they had no more than six months to live, but both lived for more than a year beyond that prediction. During that time, they were able to reconnect with family, spend precious time with loved ones and continue to live meaningful lives. Her message was simple: prognosis is not certainty, and diagnosis is not the end of the journey. That does not mean that doctors are wrong, but it does mean that when Parliament considers legislation built around predictions of life expectancy, we must take that uncertainty seriously.

[Catherine Fookes]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I will not.

I believe the concerns raised by organisations such as the Royal College of Physicians and the British Geriatrics Society about the uncertainty of the end of life, safeguarding and the definition of terminal illness deserve careful consideration.

I cannot separate this debate from my own experiences. Members of my family have experienced discrimination in the healthcare system. Those experiences leave a lasting impression; they remind us that trust, access and outcomes in healthcare are not always experienced equally by everyone. Those inequalities do not disappear when people become seriously ill.

[Sir John Hayes]

Under the Bill, what we would be saying to those clinicians is, “We want you to do much, much more. We want you to gauge whether people are being coerced. We want you to make a definitive judgment about how long someone has to live.” That is an unbearable pressure on those who have a mission to save lives, not to take them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I also want to talk about data from the King’s Fund, which shows that in 2023-24 local authorities received more than 2 million requests for social care support for new clients, but only 859,000 received publicly funded, long-term social care, nearly two thirds of them older people. That means that 58% received no support.

Furthermore, the Government’s equality impact assessment gives me pause. It acknowledges concerns that people from ethnic minority backgrounds may face higher risks because of poorer access to healthcare, poverty, lower quality of care and higher levels of abuse. Disabled people and disability organisations have also spoken powerfully throughout this debate about their concerns and the risks they believe this legislation could pose. We should listen carefully to those voices, because for many people the question is not simply whether they have been coerced; it is whether they are making this choice in circumstances none of us would want for ourselves.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. This week we have seen evidence from Kingston University reinforcing that people with learning disabilities see advice from a doctor not as advice, but as a recommendation. We know from their experience during covid that they were five times more likely to have a “do not resuscitate” order placed on them. Does she share my view that those issues in the equality impact assessment reinforce the point that for people with learning disabilities, this legislation would remain unsafe?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I do share those concerns. I have met with constituents who have also been impacted, and I have seen that in the equality impact assessment.

My point is whether people would be making this choice in circumstances none of us would want for ourselves: the person unable to access the social care they need, the person worried about the financial consequences of their illness, the person who feels like a burden to those they love, or the person facing loneliness, dependency or abuse. Where evidence identifies greater risks for particular groups and where respected voices continue to raise concerns about whether existing safeguards are sufficient, I believe Parliament has a duty to take those concerns seriously and to test whether more can be done, because access to death should never be easier than access to dignity in life.

I want every person approaching the end of life to receive the dignity, support and compassion that I have seen provided by our hospices across the country. But, having considered the evidence before us, I am not persuaded that these serious concerns about inequality, disability, safeguarding and end-of-life uncertainty have been adequately resolved. Until I can feel confident that the safeguards are strong enough to protect the most vulnerable, I do not believe that Parliament should create a legal route to an assisted death.