The Lords must now revise this dreadful assisted dying Bill

Telegraph

20-06-2025

Britain is a less civilised country today. Seldom has the House of Commons enacted legislation with such potentially calamitous consequences as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which has passed its third reading by a majority of 314 to 291. The narrow margin of victory for the assisted dying Bill indicates that opinion had turned against the legalisation of euthanasia during the process of scrutiny, but not in sufficient numbers to defeat it. The only hope of mitigating its worst aspects now lies with the House of Lords.
The Lords is a revising chamber and it should now do the job that the Commons failed to do: proper scrutiny. In this case, the revision required to make this legislation workable and safe will have to be radical. This Private Member's Bill was not in the Labour manifesto and so the Upper House is much less limited by convention in the scope of possible amendments. Peers are not generally eager to correct the follies of MPs, but this time their Lordships' duty is to make root and branch changes to the Bill, even if this risks confrontation with the Commons.
In particular, the bishops of the Church of England have a responsibility to speak out much more clearly on a matter of such moral gravity. We know that in countries where euthanasia has been legalised, a large and growing proportion of all deaths are now assisted by doctors. In Canada, for example, some studies suggest up to 10 per cent of all lives will end in this way. Surely the Lords Spiritual should be leading the national conversation about what is likely to become reality here, too, in the very near future.
Many people will rightly feel a sense of dread at the prospect of death on the NHS. When the new law takes effect in 2029, our health service will be obliged to offer assisted suicide as though it were just another form of care. Palliative care (already the Cinderella of the NHS) will now compete for resources with the new 'service'. As we report, assisted death is likely to overwhelm the NHS and finally break its budgets.
Doctors will have to offer lethal drugs to any and all patients who are deemed to be terminally ill, as long as they have mental capacity. Those who meet the criteria could include patients with all kinds of disabilities, people with Down's Syndrome and those with eating disorders. The panels that will decide whether to authorise assisted dying do not need to have personal knowledge of the patient, nor to inform families or friends. They need only decide on the balance of probabilities that the patient is not being coerced.
How did Britain find itself saddled with such a 'bad Bill', as the Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called it, on a matter of such cardinal importance? The Prime Minister must carry much of the blame. Unwilling to shoulder responsibility, he chose to pass the buck to Kim Leadbeater, a backbench MP with more zeal than sagacity. A Government Bill would have allowed much more time to examine the practical costs and benefits of shoehorning the provision of medicalised death into a service designed to preserve life.
One of Sir Keir Starmer's predecessors, Gordon Brown, rightly observed that in the name of autonomy the Bill sets up a false choice. Patients who request assisted dying will in future have a legal right to receive it, 'without guaranteeing anything approaching an equivalent right to high-quality palliative care for those close to death', he said. The refusal of the Commons to acknowledge this glaring injustice now places the onus on the Lords to enable physicians to offer terminal patients a genuine choice.
Whatever one's views about the principle of assisted dying, this Bill is a case of legislating in haste and repenting at leisure. Posterity will have to live with its lasting impact on the relationship between the public and the medical profession. But it is not too late for peers to remedy some of the Bill's flaws.