Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Viscount Astor Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Astor (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened to many of the speeches over the two days of debate, and I have also carefully read the Hansard of those I missed. My conclusion is that whatever the issues surrounding assisted dying, it is clear that this should have been a government Bill with a free vote. There should have been pre- legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee and, as we have heard, impact assessments were issued late during its progress through the Commons.

The Bill clearly gives excessive use of delegated powers, 42 in total, and we all know how difficult it is to reject—and impossible to amend—secondary legislation in this House. More surprising is that it gives the Secretary of State the right to delay its implementation for up to four years. I am not aware of any other recent Bill that has such a power. This is a private Bill, not covered by any convention, passed only by a small majority. I am sure, therefore, that it will be subject to amendment.

I understand the moral arguments against assisted dying, but one cannot help being moved by the terrible tales of excruciating pain and suffering that could be avoided. We all have personal experience of friends or family suffering in such a way. I do not believe that assisted dying means that as a society we believe some lives are not worth living, but that as a society we recognise that prolonging extreme pain and suffering can be properly remedied with all the necessary safeguards.

The fact that more than 50 people go abroad, at considerable expense, to end their life cannot be ignored, compared with the many who cannot afford such an outcome, and of course the many who already take their own life in this country, as we have heard. Having listened to the arguments, I am in no doubt that palliative and end-of-life care is not good enough. We cannot allow those suffering to feel that they must end their life due to lack of resources or of decent care, or guilt, or due to a fear of being a burden on their families or on the state.

In the end, it is about choice, individual choice, a decision made by those who seek an end to prolonged, severe pain and suffering on medical grounds: a choice made by no other. This is an outcome that is certainly better than the painful alternative of some who have refused food and medicine. Pain, of course, is subjective. It is personal.

I support those who, in terrible circumstances, wish to end their life; palliative care does not always reduce the pain or the mental anguish. I have a nagging doubt, however, that better care and better pain management would make assisted dying unnecessary except in extreme circumstances.