Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is indeed an honour to open the second day of our debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. I pay tribute to my honourable friend Kim Leadbeater, who represents the seat in which I was born, for bringing the Bill to us from the Commons. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer for the clarity and excellence of his introduction to, and leadership on, this Bill.

As my noble friend the Chief Whip said, last Friday’s debate was outstanding and the House of Lords at its best. There are many questions to be addressed as we do our job in scrutinising the Bill, and the questions posed come from those of us who support the Bill and those who do not.

I am greatly relieved that my noble friend Lady Berger and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, in their joint email to all Peers, say that their agreement will allow the Bill to go through all its stages in your Lordships’ House. With respect to those who disagree in principle with assisted dying, it is important that we remember that the Bill came to us from the Commons, and has undergone significant scrutiny and change. Our job is to scrutinise it further and improve it if we need do so. It is not our job to kill this Bill.

I was saddened last week when the noble Baroness, Lady May, spoke about this being a suicide Bill. People have written to me in the last week, very distressed. They add things such as, “We are not suicidal—we want to live—but we are dying, and we do not have the choice or ability to change that. Assisted dying is not suicide”.

I hope that today the House will continue to conduct this debate with compassion. I shall read an extract from one of the many letters that I have received, which explains the importance of compassion; I cannot better it. This concerns a woman, Pamela Fisher, a lay preacher in the Church of England and who has terminal cancer. I am reading these words with Pamela’s permission. She says:

“I live in terror at the prospect of how my final weeks of life may be. I have seen other family members (brother and father-in-law) at the end of their cancer journey, and I know what may lie ahead. Even the best palliative care has its limits. This is the dead weight of fear that I carry around with me, all the time.


I am not asking anybody to help me to shorten my life. In supporting the Bill, I seek to have the choice to shorten my death in my final weeks should my pain and suffering prove unbearable. As a Christian, I believe in loving my neighbour as myself and, on this basis, I seek the same choice for eligible others.


As a lay preacher, I cannot reconcile Christian compassion with the status quo that obliges people to suffer a drawn-out process of dying in pain when this is against their will and they have the capacity to choose. Church leaders often apply the concept of the ‘sanctity of life’ to resist assisted dying. The sanctity of life is rightly central to Christian faith. For me, the sanctity of life is about honouring the life of every individual, and this necessarily includes providing the care and treatment they need including, of course, excellent palliative care. I reject the assumption that the sanctity of life requires terminally ill people to undergo a distressing and painful death against their will.


I am asking for you to support this Bill. It would be tragic if the Bill were to fail now, having passed through the Commons with a clear majority. It would be personally devastating for me and for countless others. The majority of the UK population supports the Bill, and there is also a majority among Church of England congregations, despite the Church leadership’s energetic lobbying against the Bill.


Please remember, this is not about shortening life; it is about shortening painful and distressing ways of dying. Despite the best palliative care, around 20 people die in agony and/or awful distress every day”.


This is Pamela’s plea for compassion, and mine too.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 14th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shamash. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, speaks with enormous authority based on enormous experience, but we are considering an amendment which seeks to replace “capacity” with “ability”. As Clause 3 of the Bill makes very clear, “capacity” is the term used because there is a well-established, tried and tested scheme under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

By contrast, the word “ability”, which the noble Baroness seeks to insert, is inherently uncertain; it has no defined legal meaning. There are later amendments to this Bill, to Clause 3, which do seek to address the concept of capacity in the context of this Bill. They are very important amendments and I look forward to our debates on them—but to insert “ability” as the governing concept would simply cause confusion.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and I have worked together for many years, on many health issues, but I do not think she addressed the issue of why she wants to change the wording.

Given that we worked in 2005 on the Bill that actually put capacity into the legislation, I would be interested to know what her reasoning is. I think that is particularly important because the noble Baroness did not address the issue of choice. Of course, ability, capacity and choice are central to this Bill. I wonder why the committee whose report we have before us did not take any evidence at all from terminally ill people who need to make the choice in this matter. I think that was a grave mistake on its part and that if it had, that possibly would have led the noble Baroness to take a different view.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I was a member of the committee. The committee noted that we did not take evidence from terminally ill people. That was not a decision that we took as a committee. Suggestions were made and the clerks did not, in the end, manage to provide us with witnesses who were terminally ill, but it was not a decision that was formally taken. I agree that, had we taken evidence from—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)]

We were very grateful to receive evidence from New Zealand, and we heard from a practitioner about the challenges and the opportunities that there are. But we also heard that New Zealand had moved from being the third most successful in delivering palliative care to the 12th, and there was a direct correlation, we were told, between the reduction in the investment in palliative care and the existence of the new service. These are the realities, and there are many who have said that if there is to be a real choice—if I can just finish this sentence, I would be grateful—then the choice has to include a fully funded palliative care service to enable people to choose whether that is the course they want to go down, or another. Without that, the choice is not a real one.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

Would my noble and learned friend care to tell the House which other countries the committee took evidence from?

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)]

The difficulty we had was of course with time. We did not take a lot of evidence. The Committee will know that there was a request that we should take written evidence. It would have been possible for us to take written evidence from a number of jurisdictions, which could then have formed a body of evidence that could have been looked at. The decision was made by the committee that we should not take written evidence—so I think the committee was constrained in terms of what it could do and the timing. The committee tried to do its best. I hope that this House will not deny itself the opportunity of looking at evidence from other jurisdictions; we will all be able to talk about that in due course.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 21st November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 48, to which I have added my name, and to my Amendment 846. I added my name to Amendment 48 to explore whether pressure can emanate from a non-human and non-corporate source. As I mentioned at Second Reading, so much pressure nowadays, particularly for young people, comes from the internet, video games, social networking, TikTok and influencers. It is not only the use by people of online devices as a mechanism to pressure another person; it can also be pressure from algorithms themselves, without a human intervening.

In addition to the two prosecutions of OpenAI for ChatGPT allegedly encouraging children to take their own lives, those with chronic illnesses have testified to me that when, for instance, Facebook realises from conversations that you have a chronic illness, it changes your feed from the promotion of group chats and adverts that are positive to negative content about your treatments, whether you can live with it, and even suggesting going to Switzerland. Is it the Bill sponsors’ intention that, when the medical practitioner is verifying under the terms of Clause 10(2)(h), it is not this type of pressure? Are the internet service providers covered by Clause 1, as there is no definition of “person” in the Bill? As I said in Committee, the Bill is designed for an analogue age and not one on the cusp of AI.

Turning to statutory guidance and Amendment 846, the next question is not who applies pressure but what we mean by “pressure”. The former Chief Coroner, Thomas Teague, came to our Select Committee and we asked whether we need to define pressure. He said:

“If it forms part of the ingredients of a statutory offence, then it might be necessary. Frankly, I’m not sure that it would because, for such a common word in the English language, the fundamental principle that lawyers apply is to take the dictionary definition”.


So, last night, I looked in Collins English Dictionary, which defines “pressure” as

“someone … trying to persuade or force”

someone to do something. What a low bar that is that has to be detected. It is a good job that the law will not be retrospective and that there is parliamentary privilege; otherwise, the attempts by the noble and Learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to try to persuade us of the merits of the assisted dying Bill might actually be covered by his own Bill.

I asked the noble and learned Lord in Select Committee whether a consultation is necessary when a new concept is introduced into criminal law. His reply was, “Sometimes yes, sometimes no”. I think that catching mere persuasion means that this is a “sometimes yes” moment, particularly—as has been outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan—as this creates the basis for a criminal offence in Clause 34 that can mean imprisonment for life. The noble and learned Lord will not be surprised to hear that later in Committee we will return to his evidence to the Select Committee in relation to Clause 34.

In the Select Committee we asked various professionals what they thought “pressure” meant. Dr Suzy Lishman of the Royal College of Pathologists, who is opposed to the Bill, said:

“I would understand pressure to mean encouragement to go down a particular route, and coercion to involve some force or threat. I have had no training whatsoever in either of these”.


The Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Dr Annabel Price said:

“It would need to be differentiated from coercion in terms of its definition. Coercion would be the application of force, threat”—

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I would like to ask the noble Baroness whether the Select Committee asked anybody who is terminally ill what they thought “persuasion” or “coercion” might mean?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

We covered that matter on the first day in Committee.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is not answering my question. The truth is, of course, that the committee did not ask anybody who is terminally ill what their view was about any of this.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I will just reply to the noble Baroness, then, that within the Bill that is not necessary. I have outlined Clause 10. This applies to the people who are verifying in the process, not to the individual. It was not in the Motion your Lordships’ House approved that that evidence should be taken.

To continue, Dr Annabel Price said:

“Pressure has a broader definition of perhaps strong encouragement, expectation or the worry of letting somebody down”.


The noble Lord, Lord Patel, joined in this mini focus group and asked:

“If I were to use the word ‘pressure’ and if I were to use the word ‘coercion’, how would you interpret the two?”


Professor Mumtaz Patel from the Royal College of Physicians—again opposed to the Bill—said, “It is grey”.

Amendment 846 also reflects the view of the Law Society, which is neutral on assisted dying but opposed to the Bill. Kirsty Stuart said:

“I think it is really difficult because there is not a definition at the moment … in the Bill”.


That is why Amendment 846 is based on the statutory guidance principle from the offence of coercion under the Serious Crime Act. I note that the Home Office has recently had to issue 91 pages of statutory guidance on that offence. It seems the courts are struggling with it.

Even if Thomas Teague is right that you look at the dictionary, are we talking about economic pressure, emotional pressure, financial pressure, spiritual pressure, reputational pressure, internalised or externalised pressure, or pressure of circumstances—for instance, no one provides you with a hospice bed? As Dr Suzanne Kite, from the Association for Palliative Medicine, said:

“We know that there are pressures of, ‘Can we afford the electricity for the oxygen supply?’ … Yes, these are issues”


that people face “on a daily basis”. The Bill is silent as to what kind of pressure is meant.

To move from individual sources of pressure, there can also be group sources of pressure. Alasdair Henderson, from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, spoke to the Select Committee about

“this wider issue of coercion or pressure at a societal level or an attitudinal level”

and

“the broader trends or cultural issues”.

He said that

“pressure is not always applied directly by another individual, but can result from attitudinal barriers, particularly around disability, and lack of services and support in society as a whole”.

Could pressure come from NICE refusing you, on value-for-money grounds, the drug that you think will wipe out your metastasised cancer? Indeed, the pressure could emanate from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in her Budget, or from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, to encourage vulnerable people to take assisted dying, a matter I put to the Government Minister, Stephen Kinnock.

Caroline Abrahams of Age UK said:

“The context again for this is a system in which adult safeguarding is under acute pressure because local government is under such acute pressure”.


The British Association of Social Workers also said that unless these statutory services

“are adequately resourced, that may bend people’s decision a certain way … much of social care is self-funded now. If you are poor and you cannot have access to those personal resources, even more pressure is applied to you”.

I look to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick: how does a medical practitioner sign to say that this kind of pressure—from culture, society or attitudes, or lack of statutory services—is not being put on the individual?

There was unanimity in the Select Committee when we started asking the professionals about training. I said that pressure

“is not defined in the Bill, so I am afraid I cannot help you. We have no definition in the Bill. You are going to need training, though, in pressure. Has any of you received any training like that?”

Professor Nicola Ranger from the Royal College of Nursing, Professor Mumtaz Patel of the Royal College of Physicians and Dr Michael Mulholland from the Royal College of GPs all said no. So we now have additional costs added to the Bill, because we have to devise training in pressure and deliver it to a whole raft of professionals, care staff, et cetera, so that they understand it, in particular bearing in mind the vulnerability to criminal prosecution that exists in Clause 34.

I am going to give the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, this opportunity to shorten Committee proceedings. Deleting “pressure” from the Bill, when it has not been consulted on and has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, would aid the Committee in evaluating the Bill.