Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Jess Asato Excerpts

Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am afraid not.

Coroners investigate suspicious or violent deaths, or situations in which the cause of death is unknown. Assisted deaths would not fall into these categories, and there would therefore be no need for a default coronial investigation. This will ensure that any unnecessary delays and distress for bereaved families are avoided. These are not unexpected deaths; sadly, they were inevitable.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will not, I am afraid.

It is the manner and timing of their death about which the patient will make a legal, informed choice, having been thoroughly assessed. As Professor Aneez Esmail has said, “I cannot think of any death that would be the subject of greater scrutiny in advance of the person dying than an assisted death. The process far exceeds the level of safeguarding that is in place for many of the deaths that are, at present, routinely reviewed by medical examiners and not referred to a coroner.” Of course, anyone can report a death—including an assisted death—to the coroner, or indeed to the police, if they have any concerns that it was not carried out in accordance with the Act, and if any offences have been committed, they will be investigated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in favour of new clause 15, which clarifies that an assisted death would not be classified as an unnatural death and that a full coroner’s inquest would not normally be required.

My constituent Antony Shackleton lived with motor neurone disease for six long years. As his condition worsened, his options narrowed until there was only one choice that preserved his dignity, autonomy and peace: to travel to Dignitas in Switzerland and end his suffering on his own terms. Louise, as his wife of 25 years, and someone who had known him since the age of 18, did what any loving partner would do: she stood by him. She helped him on to that plane and held his hand through the most difficult decision of their lives, and now, for that act of love, she is under police investigation.

That is precisely why we need new clause 15. If the Bill is passed, assisted dying would be a legal, strictly regulated and monitored choice made by the individual concerned.

[Jess Asato]

I recognise that the situation facing my hon. Friend’s constituent is awful, but we are here today to balance such situations with the choices of people who may not be loved as dearly as him. Our concerns would be about the fact that many of these killings could be mercy killings, and if there is no recourse to the coroner, some people may be taking their own lives under coercion and pressure that may never be discovered, because the full law will not be applied.

[Alison Hume]

New clause 15 particularly addresses the role of coroners. Coroners investigate deaths in which there is a reasonable suspicion that the deceased has died a violent or unnatural death, where the cause of death is unknown, or if the deceased died while in custody or state detention. This is not the case with an assisted death, and there would already be strong safeguards in place, including multiple layers of oversight and assessment. The process is cautious, thorough, and heavily safeguarded. There is no need to investigate an assisted death, as it is not unnatural. In this country, it is still a crime to help someone die peacefully and with dignity, even when they are suffering unbearably from a terminal illness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Taylor]

No, I will make some progress. Requiring a judicial oath would be inappropriate because the panel is not performing a judicial function. It is a specialist, administrative panel whose first priority must be focused on safeguarding and the review of evidence.

[Jess Asato]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Rachel Taylor]

No, I will make some progress and expand on my point. Disqualifying retired and deputy judges would only shrink the pool of experienced candidates, and I do not believe that those changes would make the process safer, more effective or better. Instead, they would make it more difficult to appoint experts to allow the panel to function as the necessary safeguard that it needs to be.

Finally, I turn to the most important aspect of the Bill, which is those who are affected directly. Opponents present hypotheticals, but I have heard real stories from my constituents who support the Bill. One constituent told me about her husband who died of metastatic prostate cancer. He wanted to die at home, and despite the efforts of a dedicated palliative care team, his final month was marked by excruciating pain. Our constituents deserve better. They deserve the choice to say goodbye in peace, surrounded by loved ones, without unbearable pain. For me, this debate is about whether the status quo is acceptable. After hearing these stories and listening to lawyers and doctors, I know that it is not. If we vote in favour of the Bill, our constituents must be able to expect that it will be brought into law quickly. I therefore oppose amendment 42.

The British public overwhelmingly support the Bill. They are looking to this House for courage and leadership. That is why I will vote for the Bill, with the amendments that strengthen it. Let us bring dignity, peace and choice to those facing the end of their lives in difficulty and pain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I rise to support amendments 34 to 36 and new clause 6, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz), who sadly cannot be here today.

Health inequality shapes life expectancy and outcomes —covid deaths illuminated that—but it is absent from the Bill. A younger me would have been 100% behind this Bill. I am very pro body autonomy when it comes to abortion, but 10 years of being an MP has exposed me to coercion, duress, the billionaire price of London property, and elder abuse. It is no coincidence that, like me, the majority of London MPs and of black and minority ethnic MPs oppose the Bill.

Let us look at amendment 34. The experience of my aged parents—now no longer with us—opened my eyes to a world of pills, incontinence pads, hoists, power of attorney, key safe boxes and carer worries. I saw how non-native English-speaking pensioners—I am not talking about Welsh speakers—have their agency denied, perhaps unconsciously, by health professionals in a stretched system. My mum’s GP had a clear contempt for her accented words. At every appointment she would say to her, “One question only”. As my mum grew frailer and began to lose the power of speech, she reverted to her mother tongue and was seen by hospital teams as an annoyance, a time waster, and bed blocker. Similarly, the disabled are often written off. People cannot see beyond the wheelchair or the non-verbal. Amendment 34 would place a duty on the chief medical officer to provide information at every step of the way

[Jess Asato]

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Huq]

Will I get more time? [Laughter.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

indicated assent.

[Jess Asato]

I thank my hon. Friend and I recognise the time constraints. On the issue of vulnerable groups, she may know that a letter has been sent about eating disorders but the spokesperson for the Bill’s sponsor dismissed it, saying that the concerns raised were old news. Does she agree that there is a problem with the way the Bill is being run, as so often the concerns and evidence presented by groups have been dismissed out of hand?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Grady]

I am obliged to my hon. Friend—that is precisely why I joined the Labour party as a 16-year-old. Faced with terrible circumstances, some people will seek an assisted death. I find it hard to accept that those will be truly autonomous choices. We must be clear that the very same circumstances that have denied people dignity and robbed them of autonomy throughout their lives will drive them to an assisted death. I find that deeply troubling, and I worry that we are placing too much confidence in concepts of capacity, autonomy and self-determination.

Everyone accepts that coercive control is common—indeed, it is incredibly common, as is domestic abuse and elder abuse. There are very clear risks of coercion. I recognise that the supporters of the Bill have sought to improve protections, and to protect people in those types of circumstance. I have anxiously scrutinised those protections, and I do not believe that they will achieve their aim. That is why the amendments are so important.

[Jess Asato]

Last weekend my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) posted on X a story of two older people who wanted to die together, and who had found doctors to sign off their assisted death. Is my hon. Friend concerned that this debate might be romanticising suicide pacts given that, as we know, there are mercy killings, which are, unfortunately, actual deaths? Does he share the fears of the Government’s suicide adviser that the Bill will undermine suicide prevention efforts?

[John Grady]

I think everyone in the House debates this issue in good faith, and in the courts there is a general view that one should be reluctant to attack otherwise. I am sure that question was meant on that basis. However, one must not lose sight of the fundamental point that the protections in the Bill will not address the profound societal pressures that people will face. One must not lose sight of the fact that, whatever protections are included in the Bill, it will not protect people against coercion.