Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

If the hon. Member will forgive me, I have been told to be brief.

I am in favour of our being assisted to die as painlessly as possible, and every palliative care nurse and doctor I have ever talked to has made it clear that in the overwhelming majority of cases, that is possible. Of course, we can be anaesthetised, as we all are when we have operations. I hear the argument, but I believe that we need to improve palliative care.

What worries me about the Bill—this is my point—is that I do not believe that it will be just an assisted dying Bill; I think that in time, it will become an assisted suicide Bill. I have mentioned the ECHR. What is the logic of the Bill? We all know it is terrible if you have a terminal cancer prognosis, but what if you are clinically depressed? What if you are quadriplegic? What if you are sentenced to a lifetime of being unable to move your arms or legs? What if you know, as a member of our family in Canada does, that you will get more and more dementia, so you take the assisted dying route? The truth is that we cannot differentiate between these conditions that make life unbearable for many people. I make this prediction: if this Bill goes through—if the Parliament Act ensures that it does—I believe that in 10 years’ time we will be in similar situation to Canada, and very large numbers of people will be choosing assisted dying.

We hear a lot that this country is broken, and that the elite is ruining the country. I think that is rubbish. This country is not broken. The reason we are under pressure is that there are too many of us—too many old people; too many people with multiple health conditions. There is tremendous pressure on the NHS; we know that. We heard a lot from my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) about coercion. We have also heard that coercion is not necessarily external; it can be internal. I believe that if we move to a society in which assisted suicide is the norm, vast numbers of people will take it up. Is that really the sort of society that we want?

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

No. I agree that we would have more prosperity and be a richer country, and would have more choice and freedom, but would it really be a happier country? What I stand for, and what I believe in passionately, is respect for all human life—the life of old people who are suffering so much from dementia that they cannot even recognise their own children, and the life of people who have appalling long-term conditions. I believe that there is a greater thing than choice or prosperity; it is love—love of life. All of us in every country in the last 100 years have said that whatever happens, we should respect life and not take it. Yes, this will be difficult for many people, and we have heard moving stories, but take the NHS; at the moment, when a person goes to hospital, they know that they will be dealt with compassionately by a doctor or nurse, and that the conversation will be all about relieving their symptoms and trying to save their life. Do they want the conversation to start with the fact that their life is unbearable?

I know that there is passion on both sides of this debate, and we treat each other with respect, but before we vote for this Bill at 2.30 pm, remember what sort of society we would be creating—not a society that loves life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

The last time this matter was debated in this House, I was sitting at the hospital bedside of my dying mother. Consequently, I was unable to speak in that debate and unable to cast a vote. I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to speak and vote today, and I urge colleagues and the promoter of this Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), to ensure that this House has the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill, to amend it and to make it safe.

Accompanying someone you love through the final days of their life is one of the most profound experiences any of us can have. It confronts us with suffering, vulnerability and fear, and also with the importance of care, compassion and human dignity.

That experience did not make me indifferent to the arguments for this Bill—quite the opposite. It made me determined that before we offer people assistance to end their lives, we as individuals and, especially, as legislators have a responsibility—a duty—to ensure that they have access to every possible form of support to live their remaining days well.

As the friend to a mother whose child was failed time and again by the inadequacy of our mental health service, whose child by some miracle survived the swallowing of razor blades, anorexia, overdoses and self-harm, I know that access to every form of support was not there for them.

As a relative who saw the inadequacy of social care eat away at the self-respect of a once fiercely independent woman, leaving her to conclude that she was a burden and would be better off dead, I know that access to every possible form of support was not there for her.

As the daughter who sat at a hospital bedside, having agreed to the withdrawal of invasive treatment, only to watch my semi-conscious mother scream for water that was wrongly withheld and writhe in agony because specialist palliative care was only available nine to five on Monday to Friday, I know that access to every form of support was not there for her.

I ask colleagues: how, when we know that every possible form of support is not there for our constituents, when we know that mental healthcare is inadequate, when we know that social care is threadbare and palliative care is an unfunded lottery, and when we know that there is no going back when we vote for this, how can we prioritise and fund the resources, care and support for those choosing an assisted death but deny it to the mentally ill, the elderly and those who wish a pain-free natural death?

We hear much of choice in the context of this debate, but choice is only meaningful when people have genuine alternatives. In too many parts of our country, those alternatives simply do not exist. Therefore, before—not after, not over the next four years but before—we vote to facilitate death, we have a duty as legislators to ensure that the resource, funding and support is there for people. We need to know today, before we take this vote, that every possible effort has been made to treat suffering. This Bill does not do that.

Once we are over the edge, there is no going back. We know that in every country that has introduced assisted dying, its scope has subsequently expanded, sometimes without further legislative approval.

[Daisy Cooper]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Ms Minns]

I will not.

Despite knowing this, we stand once more on the edge. We stand on the edge, knowing all the Bill’s flaws. I ask colleagues to pause, to not step over the edge. Instead, we must ask ourselves the following questions. Are we certain that this Bill definitively safeguards against coercion, including self-coercion? Are we certain about mental capacity assessments? Are we certain about terminal prognosis? Are we certain that the safeguards and review mechanisms will be in place? Are we certain that we have ensured that our constituents have access to every possible form of support to live their remaining days well? If the answer to just one of those questions is no, then we should not—we must not—step over the edge.

Let me conclude with the words of the friend I spoke of, whose child was failed by our mental health service:

“My daughter had a history of serious mental health problems from the age of 13. Aged 22 she went to university and quickly realised she needed more support to manage the change.

Despite her history, referrals from her GP and multiple self harm instances that required A&E; community services kept saying she did not meet their thresholds.

It led ultimately to total deterioration and 2 years as an inpatient on a secure ward.

During this time she repeatedly said her life was not worth living and that she was in so much pain she wanted to die.

After much fighting with inadequate and unsafe services, she is now living in the community, back at University and has plans for the future.”

In countries such as the Netherlands, her wish to die would have been granted under the assisted dying rules. My constituent says:

“I have my daughter today because we do not have Assisted Dying. Please don’t change that.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

On that point, will the hon. Lady please give way?

[Carla Lockhart]

No, I will not.

The Bill would fundamentally alter the patient-doctor relationship. For generations, people have looked to healthcare professionals for treatment and care. That trust is precious, and should never be diluted. The Bill drives a coach and horses through that relationship. The role of our health service should be to do no harm and to stand alongside patients in their darkest moments. I am not wearing rose-tinted glasses; I know that too many people struggle to access the end-of-life care that they deserve, but the answer to that failure cannot be to make death more available. The answer is to make care more available instead. We should be focusing our energy and resources on strengthening palliative care services and ensuring that nobody faces their final days without proper support.

My opposition to this Bill is not only practical but moral. Life is precious, and it deserves protection from its beginning to its natural end. That is what my Christian faith teaches me, and that belief is shared by many of my constituents, and by countless people across this great United Kingdom. This House was founded on Christian principles, and this legislation is so far removed from those Christian principles.

The true measure of a compassionate society is not how easily it facilitates death, but how faithfully it cares for those who are suffering. As I watched my dad take his last breath on this earth, tears rolled down his face. His pain had often been unbearable, but our NHS stepped up. His consultants, pain nurse and those caring for him rallied around him, because he wanted and deserved to live. He did not need help to die; he needed help to live, and when death came naturally, he needed care, compassion and dignity. That is what every vulnerable person deserves. I cannot support a law that would allow the state to be involved in ending human life, and that is why I and my Democratic Unionist party colleagues will vote against this Bill today.