Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Friday 20th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

We are all agreed that the reference to six months is to be found in Clause 2, where it says that

“an inevitably progressive illness or disease which cannot be reversed by treatment, and … the person’s death in consequence of that illness or disease can reasonably be expected within six months”.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have always considered that the six months was critical to the essence of this Bill, because there has to be some point at which doctors say that you are likely to die. Misdiagnosis has been a problem. I recognise the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. We have discussed misdiagnosis before, but when we did, and it was then summed up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, he airily said that perhaps some of these diagnoses of six months may be a little wrong and it could be more like eight months. What he failed to address was my noble friend Lord Polak, who was given six months to live. That was 32 years ago—and we are still counting. When you get things that badly wrong, you have to really question whether these diagnoses are going to be in any way meaningful at all.

It seems to me that, if we have these tremendous variations, they totally undermine the whole essence of the Bill. We are saying that, if people have got only six months to live, they should apply for assisted dying, but it may be that they live for years afterwards.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord meant to say that they could apply, not that they should apply.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

All right—they could apply, if that helps the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter.

We have to think closely about this, because this is the essence of the Bill. I do not understand how we can be comfortable with the whole idea that some of these diagnoses will be completely wrong and, as a result, there will be people who will apply for assisted dying who might have lived for years. This strikes me as being a disturbing element of the whole Bill. We should be seriously considering whether something should be done to address this problem. I am glad it is not my difficulty.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Moylan and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, have told us about the uncertainty of the statistical evidence, and indeed the unreliability. That points to a flaw at the heart of the Bill, for which a condition for eligibility is that death must be reasonably expected within six months in consequence of that illness. What then is at the heart of the Bill, if I may develop the point a bit, is a process for managing assisted suicide in consequence of something which is not at all certain.

I have to say that, in the areas we know about where the state has a process for providing a service, particularly in education, we see that a state service is not geared to the individual case. One of the points that my noble friend Lord Moylan explained was the individual case, and most noble Lords agree with this. How are we going to have a state service, as is proposed by the sponsor’s Bill, for a general cohort, and not the specific individual case, that is reliable for individuals? We see in education and other areas that exceptions continue to have to be made—for instance, for children with special educational needs, particularly autistic children. These are exceptional cases which do not fit the general application of a state service.