Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

I certainly do, and I expect that those sort of things were on the mind of the Prime Minister when he made his remarks recently.

The first reason why I will not support the Bill today is that I seriously do not want to live in the kind of society in which the frail, elderly and vulnerable feel coerced into “doing the right thing.” We can set up panels, and involve judges in chambers, social workers and all the rest of it, but as humans, we know how humans work. We know the light side and the dark. Often, the currency that passes between vulnerable adults and their influencers is things that are not said; some of the contributions today have touched on that, and none of it is captured in clause 34.

We know that certain groups particularly like to please, to acquiesce, to oblige. We all know constituents like that, and they are often among the most vulnerable. They are people with Down’s syndrome, and people like the lady who featured in the advert for simple cremations, cited by my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley)—quiet people, if you like. They are among the people who are not adequately protected by this Bill. Can we genuinely say that there would be a level playing field for them? Our first mission in this place must be to protect the most vulnerable.

Speaking of the vulnerable, Canada has seen the most appalling mission creep, particularly into mental health. That is probably why the Royal College of Psychiatrists is so wary of the Bill, and it is in company with the most impressive array of medical, disability and charity groups—count them off! Do not turn a deaf ear to them.

I do not want the tone and texture of my profession, or of any other, to be changed irrevocably by its involvement in termination. Nor do I want others in the NHS or elsewhere in our care system who are unprotected by codes of ethics and opt-outs, and who will not be explicitly protected by the Bill, to feel obliged to be involved in termination. Clause 31 is all very well, but if this Bill passes, the pressure on those in the palliative care sector in particular to facilitate assisted dying will be substantial. Earlier in my career, I considered being an obstetrician; it was a career to which I was attracted, but one of the reasons why I did not take that route was that I did not feel comfortable being involved with a very large part of that practice, which is termination of pregnancy. I feel that this Bill will irrevocably change the nature of palliative services in this country.

The previous Health Secretary pointed out the tedious business of opportunity costs. Five per cent of deaths in Canada, where the law we are debating has been in place for a decade, are now assisted.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Murrison]

I will not, because of time. I would get the evils from Madam Deputy Speaker.

One in 20 deaths in Canada is assisted. If that were translated to this country, it would mean a huge extra cost, and the money would have to be found from other frontline services. Which ones? Likely it would be taken from Government support for hospices, which are already reeling from national insurance increases that have yet to be fully offset.

In my view, the moral, ethical, legal and practical issues that we are discussing today, complex as they are, are well beyond the scope of a private Member’s Bill. The only way to achieve a halfway safe and competent Act is to make this a Government Bill, mentioned in a manifesto. So far, no major political party has wanted to do that.

It is true that, each day, lives are shortened by interventions aimed at easing pain or suffering, which is what the caring professions do. That is quite different from a deliberate and systematic state-sanctioned and delivered programme to end the lives of people approaching death. At the end of the day, we can rationalise the pros and cons of assisted dying, but most of us will go with what we feel in our guts. My instincts tell me that giving the state or its agents leave to end life in this way is wrong. They tell me that, however well intentioned, it would lead in one direction, and would, over time, leave a grisly trail of unintended and unforeseen consequences. That is why I oppose this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rosie Duffield]

Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution and her considerable experience in this area.

We hear a lot about coercion. Those with learning disabilities are surely extremely vulnerable to that, as well as the elderly and people with dementia. Before my dad lost the ability to speak, he could absolutely have presented as being capable of signing on the dotted line to medical professionals who did not know him like the family did. In reality, he would have forgotten almost immediately what had just taken place, but he retained an ability to be jovial, and to mask his confusion and memory issues, for quite some time.

As for the slippery slope, every single example in other nations proves without a doubt that at the start, the intention may be that assisted dying legislation will apply only to terminal illness—dementia and Alzheimer’s are, of course, terminal—but the scope ends up expanding alarmingly, as it has done in Canada, and in the Netherlands, which is so much closer to home.

[Lizzi Collinge]

I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that the law in Canada was brought in after a Supreme Court judgment, whereas our Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights have repeatedly refused to rule on this, saying quite rightly that it is a matter for Parliament. Does she accept that this jurisdiction is different, and that this is a matter for Parliament, and can be changed only by Parliament?

[Rosie Duffield]

We talk a lot about Canada, but the Netherlands is practically next door to my constituency and has a democracy very similar to ours. People in their 20s have been allowed to take this path there, which is absolutely shocking. Mental ill health, and even solvable temporary social problems, have entered the fray in those other nations; I am talking about depression and homelessness. There are young people opting to end their life. Those in favour of this Bill may dismiss that as scaremongering, but it happens in one of our neighbouring democracies.

One of our most powerful speakers here, the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), this week hosted Alicia Duncan, whose story featured in “Better Off Dead?”. Her mother was put on the Canadian MAID—medical assistance in dying—system’s track 1, which is for those who have a terminal health diagnosis, despite her not having one. Alicia’s family believes that she was essentially coerced, through an abusive relationship, and her children were not able to prevent her death. These horrifying cases may seem isolated, but there are many, many more stories, trust me, that did not make the final cut of the documentary—stories not told to anyone. We make laws based on worst-case scenarios every single week, so why is this Bill so almost uniquely optimistic?

If we have any doubt, we must vote against this Bill today. It does not mean that we believe that the principles of it are entirely wrong, but I urge colleagues to listen to disabled activists like Liz Carr, Tanni Grey-Thompson and Jane Campbell, and experts in palliative care in the other place, such as Ilora Finlay and Professor Katherine Sleeman. I ask them to please vote against this Bill if they have any doubt.