Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Damian Hinds and Cat Eccles

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

My right hon. Friend is right, of course. When we in this House are told that there will be secondary legislation, guidance or a code of practice, we can only ever take that on trust, and this subject is of such moment that what is on the face of the Bill is that much more important. Given the scale of the decisions that people could make as a result of this legislation, it is right that an additional layer of caution should be applied by legislators.

Obviously, it is important not to generalise—every single person is an individual—but it is the case that people with Down syndrome often exhibit distinct social characteristics, including great sociability, empathy, and a strong desire to please others and seek positive social feedback, while also being particularly sensitive to criticism or perceived failure, which can compound issues around communication and comprehension. We do not need to define what can result as coercion to worry about what might happen in that context.

Amendment 101 and new clause 1 are about initiating a conversation and ensuring that there are additional safeguards, and I urge the House to apply caution that is commensurate with the gravity of the path that could be embarked upon.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

I rise to speak against amendments 102, 80, 5 and 38, and new clauses 16 and 9. In my varied NHS career, I have seen all aspects of death and disease. As healthcare professionals, we commit first to do no harm. As medicine advances at breakneck speed, we are able to preserve life far beyond what could have been thought possible in the past. However, there have been many times when I have felt that preserving life can be harmful.

Life-prolonging treatments do not always improve quality of life, and patients suffer pain and discomfort, as well as mental distress. Friends and family have to watch their loved ones go through these difficult experiences, and I believe that patients should have a choice to end their life with dignity when faced with a terminal illness. The safeguards in the Bill have been significantly strengthened in Committee, so amendments seeking further to delay the process are simply unnecessary. In the oral evidence given by multiple experts, including Professor Chris Whitty, it was argued that we must be mindful not to overcomplicate the process to the point that no one can access an assisted death.

Amendment 80 seeks to impose an unnecessary restriction by requiring the terminal illness to cause

“severe pain and discomfort that cannot be reasonably relieved”

by palliative treatment. However, the Bill already requires that symptoms cannot be reasonably relieved, and it is important to remember that terminal illness is more than just pain alone.

Amendment 102 states that “remediable suicide risk factors” must be addressed before any preliminary discussion. Again, that is already covered in the Bill, with multiple checks on mental capacity and mental illness. Suicide risk is complex and fluid, and as I know from my own struggles, it is possible to feel suicidal but not want to die. This is another vague and unnecessary barrier without clear legal or clinical definition.

New clauses 9 and 16 and amendment 5 all seek to undermine multiple layers of assessment, independent oversight and professional accountability, where safeguards are already strong and multifaceted.

Amendment 38 calls for patients to qualify only if they have not refused further treatment or taken life-shortening steps. It is morally wrong to force anyone to accept medical treatment that they do not wish to have. The Bill is about choice and autonomy, and the amendment would undermine the freedom to make deeply personal decisions about one’s care. This is not a one-size-fits-all pathway, and there must always be a patient-centred approach.