Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 6th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I am going to talk about my sister, whom I asked before she died whether I could bring her case before your Lordships. She said yes, so I have.

My sister had a very unhappy life; she was badly abused when she was a child and tried to kill herself three times before she was 20. Thankfully, she stayed alive until she was 75, and all the time she expressed her will as, “I don’t want to live”. When I was introduced here, she was here, and she said, “I’m glad I’m alive”, which I was very happy about. However, thereafter, she developed lung cancer. She had been a smoker, and she was obviously dying but she refused treatment. She allowed the lung cancer to kill her, but at all times, she had the option to have treatment for it. She had the autonomy to take the positive route, but she decided not to. She did not have any assistance from anybody else, and she died fairly peacefully when she was 75. I wanted to bring her case to your Lordships’ House in support of what the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, was saying.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 105 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, to which I have added my name. I am saddened by the prejudice we have heard expressed by Members of your Lordships’ House this morning. For those of us with a lifelong congenital condition, this amendment is personal. It is also crucial because people like me need protection from such blatant prejudice—prejudice which the pandemic showed can inform so many clinical, and even administrative, decisions affecting disabled people’s care and treatment: decisions about life or death. This amendment would give those of us with lifelong congenital conditions some protection.

I can imagine that some noble Lords might be sceptical as to how an NHS founded on the principle of equal access to treatment, free at the point of delivery, could possibly also tolerate a culture of discrimination on grounds of disability. Surely, that is the very antithesis of its founding charter. Perhaps it is, but we human beings, being humans, bring our prejudices and—as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, so ably reminded us—our unconscious bias to work, and healthcare staff are no exception. This is especially the case when the very nature of a congenital lifelong disability can often mean a condition that, despite very expensive treatment, may never be cured.

I was reminded of such prejudice only recently when attending an appointment at a world-renowned London hospital. The clinical staff could not have been nicer or more professional. In contrast, the young receptionist could barely conceal his hostility when I spoke to him. I have no idea why, as he was laughing and joking with another patient soon afterwards. All I know is that I experienced and immediately recognised discrimination, as if somehow, I chose to look or sound like this. I most definitely did not, yet I am discriminated against because of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

First, I am saying that six months is safe for the reasons that Chris Whitty gave: six months is generally about right; it might not be right and it might be five months or seven months, but it is a proper basis on which to proceed. The statistical evidence that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is relying on is about errors that are not of the massive scale that would undermine that proposition. Secondly, having just checked with my noble friend the Minister, she was not saying that it had to be 80% right. She was saying what the amendment said—I think it was in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor—and why it was not an appropriate or workable amendment.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for mentioning the importance of listening. I also thank him for the fact that, in dismissing every single amendment that your Lordships have considered, he has reminded the House of the extent to which he is listening. I ask him, because he failed to address my question about filibustering, to confirm that our consideration of these amendments will not be presented as filibustering—a yes or no would suffice. Finally, I do not suffer from my condition; I live with it, despite obstacles that I encounter. I suffer from prejudice.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I apologise unreservedly for saying that the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, suffers from a condition. I completely accept the way in which he put it. I also sympathise with him and accept that he suffers from prejudice on a regular basis in relation to it. That is obviously a fate that he has suffered and I have sympathy for him in that respect. On the question of filibuster, my issue with the way in which noble Lords have been dealing with this is that we are now on the ninth day of Committee and we have got to Clause 2. My experience of this House is that it is able to focus on the things that—