Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I have no doubt that the vast majority in this House—probably every single hon. and right hon. Member—is sympathetic to the underlying motivation of the Bill, which is to ease suffering in others and try to avoid suffering where possible. For the most part, the debate, both in this Chamber and in Committee, has been good natured and conducted in a way that we can be proud of.

There have been wider questions about the motivations of both the proponents and the opponents of the Bill. Although this is not about any individual one of us, I think it is only fair that, because some questions have been asked, I put a few things on the record about my own position. I do not come at this from a religious point of view—I am an atheist; I am a humanist. My position is driven by my concerns about the practicalities of the Bill, rather than any religious viewpoint.

It has been suggested, particularly when people talk about their experience of talking to people who have lost loved ones or who are themselves terminally ill—this has been said to me on a number of occasions—that if we had seen someone suffering, we would agree with the Bill. I have seen someone suffering. Earlier this year, my closest friend died painfully of oesophageal cancer, and I was with him in the final weeks of his life.

I come at this from a position neither of faith, nor of ignorance, and I hope that the House will take those factors into consideration when I say what I am about to say.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On the TV last night, they did a survey of GPs. The relationship between a GP and a patient is incredibly close. When our children and grandchildren come into the world, our GP is involved. When a GP has to deliver a diagnosis of terminal illness, there is fear not just in the eyes of the patient but in the eyes of the GP—the doctor, the friend we all have. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the importance of today’s debate and vote? It will change forever that relationship of trust between the GP and the patient; it will do so in a negative way and it will never change ever again.

[Sir James Cleverly]

I will refer to the hon. Gentleman’s point later in my speech. I will try not to take too many interventions, because many people have not had the chance to speak in the debate and I want to give them the chance to do so.

On Second Reading I made the point that we need to think about the detail of the Bill and not just vote in accordance with the broad principles. I made the point that, because it is a private Member’s Bill, the opportunity to change it fundamentally is limited, and so we have an enhanced duty to get it right first time. We were told on Second Reading that a lot of the concerns, worries and detailed questions would be resolved in Committee. We were promised the gold standard: a judicially underpinned set of protections and safeguards. Those protections did not make it through Committee. I have also heard people say, where there are still problems, issues and concerns, that the Lords will do that work. But none of us should think that it is right to subcontract our job to the other place.

We are making an incredibly important and fundamental change, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted, in the relationship between medical professionals and those they serve. If we make that change, we will introduce a small but permanent question mark in the minds of every patient, particularly a patient who is discussing a serious illness or terminal diagnosis: “What is this medical professional expecting of me? What are they thinking? Where is their head?” Whereas, with the situation we have at the moment, the patient knows that the medical professional is dutybound to do no harm, and to preserve life and dignity wherever possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), all the Members who served on the Committee and, indeed, the whole House for the approach that everyone has taken to this Bill.

I want to make it clear that I came to this Bill with an open mind. Like many, I supported it in principle at first glance, but this debate is no longer about the principle of assisted death—that is not the decision before us today; it is not the issue on which we will walk through the Lobby when we decide to vote for or against this Bill. Our responsibility in this place is to make sure that the Bill is safe, workable and effective. That is the test that will lead us to vote for or against the Bill today. As the Bill stands, it presents a public safety issue.

[Jim Shannon]

I spoke to the hon. Lady beforehand, and I understand her concerns. They are the same concerns I have, on behalf of those who have anorexia, those with mental health conditions, troubled people—those who would be vulnerable when this idea was presented to them. Does she think, like I do, that this Bill does not in any way address the issue of those who are vulnerable, when it comes to assisted dying?

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think he might have read some of my speech, which I will carry on with.

I will set out why the Bill is not safe, and speak about the two amendments that I tabled: amendment 14, which we have nodded through today, and amendment 38, which we will not get the chance to vote on. Amendment 14 dealt with the issue of voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, or VSED, which has been used as a “bridge” to assisted death in other jurisdictions. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley accepted that amendment, but let me be very clear: this does not close the anorexia loophole—that was the subject of another amendment. Voluntarily stopping eating and drinking is not what happens to people with anorexia. People with anorexia stop eating and drinking because they have a psychiatric illness. Those are two categorically different issues. I must make it absolutely clear that even though amendment 14 has passed today, it does not address concerns about anorexia or close that loophole.

Members in the other place are already raising the concern that, because this is a private Member’s Bill, they do not believe that they can provide all the necessary safeguards if we give a Third Reading today to a Bill that is not safe to be delivered to the public. At least 60 women with anorexia in multiple countries have died by assisted death when they needed treatment, not help to die. Every one of them was assessed to have capacity by two doctors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde]

The hon. Member will be aware that the Bill creates a criminal offence that would punish those who would coerce a relative in such a way. [Hon. Members: “Self-coerce.”] There are folks who talk about the concept of self-coercion, but others would frame such a decision as a choice. Self-coercion is a choice.

My constituent said,

“This could have been avoided with an assisted dying law. My partner was from a jurisdiction where such a law exists. A relative used that law. They were able to gather their family, say a proper goodbye and die in peace and with dignity before losing all physical and mental capacity.”

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Josh Babarinde]

I will not, to give others the chance to speak after me.

My constituent went on to say,

“The procedure to enable this was protracted and had several safeguards which would prevent much of the concerns we hear about by those opposed. I urge you to support this bill”—

the Bill, and not just the principle. I will do so because the status quo is completely unacceptable and must be reformed.