Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, in my view, this Bill invites us to cross into completely new and dangerous territory. Although it has been argued that we already, in the law, allow for intervention, we would be permitting for the first time the policy and widespread practice of ending life by medical means. It would be a fundamental alteration in how we understand the purpose of medicine, the duty of the state and the value that we place on life itself. It is not the natural course of dying with support but the deliberate intervention to end life. If Parliament is to legislate on such a grave matter, the language we use should be transparent and precise so that the public understand fully what is at stake.

It is assisted suicide and we should call it for what it is. Human life carries dignity and meaning in every stage and circumstance. That worth is not reduced by age, illness or disability. When people fear pain, we must provide support for better relief. When they fear loneliness, we must ensure companionship and support. When they fear neglect, we should guarantee care. The solution to suffering is not to make death one of the prescribed remedies.

A number of issues have come up time and time again and it is right to emphasise them because they are at the heart of the concerns that people have. People have written on many issues. I thank people for getting in contact with me. A central safeguard is said to be the requirement of the six-month prognosis. We have heard about clinical prediction of life expectancy oftentimes being totally unreliable. It is an estimate, not a certainty. Doctors acknowledge that such judgments can be mistaken. If a person’s eligibility rests on a calculation that is inherently fragile, the foundation of the safeguard is insecure.

One of my main concerns, shared by so many people, is the pressure on older people. Even where explicit coercion is absent, people will feel that they should choose an earlier death to relieve others of responsibility or to reduce demands on family or care systems. Evidence from abroad shows that individuals frequently cite such considerations in their decisions. There will be a new and silent expectation on those who already feel vulnerable.

Then we are told that this legislation is narrow in scope. Experience indicates, as many noble Lords have said, that once the principle of assisted suicide is accepted, criteria will broaden, through later legislation, judicial rulings or medical practice shifts. Even if the Bill begins with limits, there is no guarantee that those limits will remain firm over time.

Regarding the safeguards that were outlined so fully by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in his introduction, some of the most significant checks that we were told about were revised as the Bill progressed through the other place. Oversight has moved from established judicial processes to new administrative structures. Definitions have altered. Clarity has been reduced. There is much vagueness. Too much power has been given to the Government, through delegated legislation, to make regulations. Protections appear less certain, even before the Bill reaches the statute book. What confidence can we have in their long-term durability?

We must have regard to what should be our priorities. Across the United Kingdom, access to specialist end-of-life care remains extremely patchy. There was a conference in Belfast just yesterday on palliative care which illustrated the many deficiencies in Northern Ireland. Too many families still face inadequate pain management and insufficient support. Before contemplating a law that allows doctors to hasten death in a widespread way, our first responsibility is to guarantee that everyone can receive comprehensive palliative care of the highest standard. That is where compassion and justice should direct us.

No one who has listened to this debate can fail to understand that everyone who has spoken has compassion, but compassion must be joined with caution. Even those who agree with the principle of assisted dying or assisted suicide must acknowledge that this Bill is grossly deficient, even for that purpose.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 21st November 2025 Lords Chamber

This really matters when we consider what my noble friend Lord Deben referred to. It has been well documented. Of course there will be some people where there is no issue about coercion, but we have a duty to think about those for whom those burdens are real. We have seen it in other parts of healthcare, I am concerned that we will see it in this, and I hope that we can find a way to address that in the Bill.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

Some noble Lords are becoming exasperated or resentful about the time that we are taking to consider these important amendments today. I say gently that, had some of these issues been dealt with in a different way in the other place, we would not have to spend the time we are spending in this House dealing with them. When we consider the number of days in Committee that we spend on important Bills that come before us—sometimes 11 or 12 days in Committee and another three, four or five days on Report—it is not unreasonable that we spend at least a few hours to consider matters of life and death.

These amendments relating to coercion are at the heart of some of the concerns that many people have about the Bill. Coercion is central to the concerns. We have heard about financial and emotional abuse, about external influences, people feeling a burden and wanting to relieve themselves of that burden. These are critical issues—they are real issues. Those of us who have served as Members of Parliament, who have worked in the community and who have dealt with real people in real communities understand and know the reality of what we are talking about.

It can be easy to dismiss these issues sometimes. We sometimes see people speak on television who are very strong and confident, with lots of family support and resources around them. But I was struck today by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Deben: we must speak up for the vulnerable. I came across many vulnerable people in my work as an MP in one of the most deprived areas of Belfast, and they suffered in great loneliness and financially straitened circumstances. They felt pressure in today’s environment, where suicide is something that people undergo. In this situation, will the safeguards being introduced be stronger than what we have today?

A new regime is being set up whereby, for the first time, the state and all its resources will be made available to assist another person to end their life. That is a very different set of circumstances. All the pressures and influences that vulnerable people come under today will be massively increased and amplified when this new law comes into place—if it does.

It is very important that we take the time to consider these matters. I support the amendments in this group, to a greater or lesser extent, and very much agree with the sentiments argued by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about encouragement. That is something that needs to be in the Bill if we are to provide all the necessary safeguards. Whether you are for the Bill or against it in principle, surely we need the most robust and strongest possible safeguards against coercion, pressure, encouragement or otherwise.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords—