Uncategorized

Today, members of the House of Lords will debate the Terminally Ill Adults Bill for the first sitting of Committee Stage.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, Baroness Grey-Thompson, Lord Carlile of Berriew, Baroness Coffey, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, Lord Moylan, and Lord Sandhurst, all opponents of the Assisted Dying Bill, have together tabled 587 amendments to it. My Death, My Decision says this clearly goes past just being scrutiny of the Bill and is an obvious attempt to undemocratically derail the Bill. 

Amendment Analysis:

Seven of the most vocal opponents to the Bill have put forward 587 amendments between them:

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff	177
Baroness Grey-Thompson	128
Lord Carlile of Berriew	65
Baroness Coffey	61
Lord Goodman of Wycombe	55
Lord Moylan	47
Lord Sandhurst	42

Over 800 amendments have been put forward by opponents of the Bill, and fewer than 100 have been put forward by supporters of the Bill. Lord Falconer, the sponsor of the Bill, has put forward 35 amendments.

Deliberate delaying tactics

Opponents to the Bill will claim that a bill of this nature requires additional scrutiny. They may also claim that some amendments are probing, designed to encourage debate.

However, some amendments are increasingly nonsensical, wrecking, and clear efforts to undermine the Bill. Baroness Coffey has put forward an amendment that says that a person can only have an assisted death if they have not left the UK in the past twelve months. This would prevent anyone who had recently been on holiday from having an assisted death, and would also be unenforceable. 

Lord Goodman of Wycombe has put forward several amendments to increase the number of assessment stages from two independent doctors and a panel to five doctors and a panel, the fifth being a geriatrician. This would be impossible to navigate for a terminally ill person with fewer than six months to live, and a significant minority of applicants for an assisted death would be under the age of 60 (15% of applicants in Victoria, Australia are).

Several other amendments have been repeatedly discussed and voted down by the House of Commons, such as amendments to introduce a ‘gag clause’ to stop doctors discussing assisted dying with patients. They were voted down at both the Committee and Report stages there.

Undermining the democratic process

Assisted dying has faced unprecedented scrutiny, more than any Private Members’ Bill in history.

The Health and Social Care Committee inquiry into assisted dying received 63,000 responses from the public, over 300 submissions of written evidence, two closed-door roundtable discussions and five oral evidence sessions. They reported in 2024. 

Since then, the Commons Bill Committee received evidence from 50 witnesses, 444 pieces of written evidence, and spent over 100 hours scrutinising the Bill.

As the Hansard Society has pointed out, for a 51-page Bill, 942 amendments so far are an unusually large number of amendments. 

‘Indeed, it is the largest number of amendments at Committee Stage in the Lords for any Bill this Session. Only three Bills have attracted similar numbers of amendments, and all three were much longer Bills – the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill (725 amendments over 137 pages), the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (652 amendments over 180 pages), and the Employment Rights Bill (646 amendments over 299 pages). Moreover, all three of those Bills have now completed their Committee Stages. Since amendments can still be tabled up to the final Committee sitting, it is possible that the number of amendments tabled for the assisted dying bill will even more significantly exceed those bills. Notably, each of the three bills also had significantly more than four days in Committee – 12, 8, and 11 days respectively.’

As the Assisted Dying Bill is a private members’ bill and not part of a government manifesto commitment, if it runs out of time, then it could fail entirely. This would be egregious, as most of the public supports a change in the law and the Commons has voted in favour with a clear majority.

Louise Shackleton, who was under police investigation for accompanying her husband to Dignitas, said:

‘I sat by my husband’s side as he made the most heartbreaking and dignified decision of his life. He was suffering, and the only mercy left was to travel to Switzerland to end that suffering. For loving him enough to go with him, I was treated like a criminal. The system failed him, and it failed me. No one should have to choose between compassion and the law. We need change, not more delays, not more political games, but real, humane change.’

‘To see hundreds of wrecking amendments being tabled, many by the same small group of peers who’ve always opposed this Bill, is gut-wrenching. This isn’t scrutiny, it’s sabotage. While they play politics, people like my husband are forced to suffer, or die alone in another country. How can that possibly be right? The public supports this Bill. The Commons supports this Bill. These tactics are an insult to the democratic process and to every family that has lived through this pain.’

Dave Sowry, Board Member of My Death, My Decision, said:

‘Looking at the ridiculous number of amendments, I can only conclude that this represents a concerted effort by a very small number of peers, who are all against the Bill as a matter of principle, to block its progress.

‘They ignore the perspective of those the Bill is designed for, people at the end of their lives. Its aim is to improve the quality of those last weeks, and having accompanied my wife to Dignitas for an assisted death, I know how precious those weeks are.

‘The process must be as simple as possible for the vast majority of straightforward cases, whilst being robust and safe for the remaining tiny minority of complex cases. This small group of peers must not be allowed to undermine the will of Parliament and the hopes and wishes of the public.’

The House of Lords Select Committee on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill held its fifth and final day of oral evidence, during which it heard evidence from a range of pharmaceutical and legal experts. 

My Death, My Decision and Humanists UK have raised concerns about the potential bias of the Committee and the oral evidence that has been chosen. 

First session: Life-ending substances

Rachel Arrundale, Interim Director of Partnerships at the Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), told the Committee:

‘We would look at all the evidence that would be available. That would start from how the product is made, non-clinical data, lab studies, knowledge about the substances in use. It is our understanding that in most parts of the world, the substances that are in use are in fact licensed medicines, licensed for other purposes, other indications in the UK. So there may well be quite a lot of clinical data about those substances in use for other reasons. 

‘And we can also draw on experience from other jurisdictions where they’ve been used. So a lot of information may well be available. My colleagues would assess that incredibly rigorously, as they do all of their other work, and if there were any suggestions that they weren’t safe or effective for the purpose intended, then the substance would not become an approved substance.’

Laura Wilson, Director for Scotland at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, was asked by the Committee whether the life-ending medication should be put on the face of the Bill. She replied:

‘I think we would encourage, regardless of where it’s decided, that it is done by a panel of experts who are giving advice on the best substances to use based on the real-world evidence that we have. I suppose we would just exercise maybe a note of caution about it being in primary legislation around things like supply issues and the requirement to potentially have to change the approved substance at short notice if there are issues.’

A survey conducted by The Pharmaceutical Journal shows that 54% of pharmacists said they supported assisted dying in principle, with just 35% opposed.

Evidence to the Bill Committee in the Commons from DIGNITAS, the Swiss assisted dying centre, said that out of more than 3,900 cases of assisted dying ‘Every patient ingesting [the] lethal dosage passed away, with no instances of regaining consciousness.’

Second session: legal experts

Sir Nicholas Mostyn, a former High Court judge who was diagnosed with Parkinson’s, told the Committee:

‘[The Bill] is overly complex but it is much better than the existing law, and I really do say a vote against this Bill is a vote in favour of the existing law, and you could hardly make up a law as malign as the existing law. I’ve got a right to kill myself, but I must do so entirely alone without any assistance. If somebody helps me, they probably won’t be prosecuted if they don’t know what they’re doing. But they probably will be prosecuted if they do know what they’re doing. You couldn’t really make it up.’

Sir Max Hill, former Director of Public Prosecutions, told the Committee:

‘This Bill is not a rush to legislate on a first global effort in relation to this. On the contrary, this has been advanced cautiously over a long period of time and many iterations in front of Parliament which members know about. We are following a sequence of models in many places around the world, 31 such models already exist, including a number of states in the USA, which is in double figures. This does not replicate any of them, pure and simple. It stands alone. It has learnt the lessons from all of those jurisdictions. It is in my view, in its current form, far more powerful than any of them.’

Third session: Health Minister and Chief Medical Officer

Stephen Kinnock, Minister of State at the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC), told the committee:

‘The view of the government, in terms of workability, is that it strikes that balance between access and safety.’

Sir Chris Witty, Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Health and Social Care, echoing some of the previous witnesses, warned against unwarranted complexity and bureaucracy in the assisted dying process.

Last week, Sarah Sackman MP, Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services, said that if Parliament passes the Bill in its current form, ‘the Government considers it deliverable’. 

 

Fourth session: Children’s Commissioner

The fourth session heard from Dame Rachel de Souza. She told the Committee that, for people working in the health service, ‘18 isn’t really a thing’, and that the statutory duty for vulnerable young people was extended to 25 through education health care plans (EHCP). She said:

‘Those children are protected in law to 25 and I think that we’re kind of missing a trick by thinking somehow 18 is the cut off. I really do strongly think that.’

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, as per the title of the Bill, is limited to adults over the age of 18. An amendment at Report Stage in the Commons states that no health professional shall raise assisted dying with a person under the age of 18. Already, this prevents a doctor or nurse from explaining to children whose parent is going through the process of an assisted death what is happening, including providing children with practical or emotional support.

Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision, are deeply disappointed that the Committee chose to receive evidence from someone whose remit focuses on people outside of the scope of the Bill, but not from terminally ill adults. Clare Turner, a mother of two with stage four breast cancer, and Louise Shackleton, whose husband went to Switzerland for an assisted death, have called this omission ‘outrageous’.

Fifth session: New Zealand

This was the only session to receive international evidence, despite a number of jurisdictions having assisted dying legal, safe, and working for decades. New Zealand legalised assisted dying in 2020 after a referendum saw 65% of citizens come out in favour. A systematic review of the law carried out in 2024 found that the service was ‘working well’ and ‘Families and patients expressed deep gratitude for the compassionate, person and family-centred, dignified, and timely care that practitioners are offering.’

Dr Jeanne Snelling, Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law at University of Otago, told the Committee:

‘The overwhelming feedback from patients and families was gratitude for the opportunity to access assisted dying and one of the interesting findings was that even families who may not initially be comfortable with their family member’s choice, generally became advocates for their family member. So that was another interesting finding for us was the journey that patients and families take together.’

Dr Jessica Young, Senior Research Fellow at the School of Health at Victoria University of Wellington, told the Committee:

‘They really get to the heart of why this law is important, that there are patients and families at the centre of this experience, and they are expressly grateful for this service. They feel a sense of relief that their loved one no longer has to suffer and that their suffering is also relieved.

‘They no longer have to watch their loved ones suffering in terms of the family experiences. They say things like “Mum was just so relieved, as soon as she got signed off you could just see that she was relaxed. She had the option. She had control. She no longer had to go down the dying route where she was gasping for air.” They could shortcut these experiences that they didn’t want at the end of life.’

How balanced is the Select Committee?

It has been reported that the Committee is weighted against assisted dying, with more opponents of legislation change than supporters. Analysis by Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision suggests that the experts so far called to give evidence consist overwhelmingly of those opposed to assisted dying. 

Excluding from the Bill sponsors and ministers, of the 39 evidence-givers, only six were supportive of assisted dying, a third were against, and the rest were neutral.

Humanists UK raised how the Bishop of Newcastle declared ‘no conflict of interest’ in her role on the Committee despite receiving a salary and support from the Church of England, which has an organisational position opposing assisted dying.

What happens next?

The Select Committee will not produce a report or make recommendations but publish a brief summary of the evidence, which is due to be published on Friday. The Bill will then progress to its Committee Stage for detailed line-by-line scrutiny on Friday 14 November.

The Bill will need to complete its passage through parliament by Spring 2026.

Richy Thompson, Director of Public Affairs and Policy at Humanists UK, said:

‘The Select Committee has lacked the voices of those most directly affected: terminally ill people themselves. Without hearing from those facing the end of life, the Committee overlooked the urgency and personal realities behind the call for assisted dying. This has not been a fair and balanced process, as it deliberately did not include the perspectives of those whose rights and dignity are at stake.

‘We need an assisted dying law to give a compassionate choice to those who are suffering unbearably at the end of life. No one should be forced to endure needless pain or travel abroad to die with dignity. With robust safeguards and proper oversight, we can create a law that protects the vulnerable while respecting individual autonomy and humanity.’

Dave Sowry, Board Member of My Death, My Decision, said:

‘The Committee waited until the very last session to hear international evidence. The final session heard from experts from New Zealand, where strong safeguards have protected vulnerable people while enabling dying people facing intolerable suffering to make compassionate end-of-life choices. The data shows that fears of widespread abuse are unfounded and that legal, regulated systems provide greater protection than the status quo in this country.

‘Nevertheless, it is deeply disappointing that the Committee has chosen not to hear directly from terminally ill people or from families who have supported loved ones through assisted deaths abroad. Their lived experience is vital to understanding the real-world impact of our current law. Without their voices, this inquiry risks being one-sided and missing the opportunity to truly reflect the needs and wishes of those most affected.’

Notes

Members of the MDMD team, as well as individuals affected by the current law on assisted dying, are available for interview upon request

For further comment or information, media should contact Nathan Stilwell at nathan.stilwell@mydeath-mydecision.org.uk or phone 07456200033. (media only)

Media can use the following press images and videos, as long as they are attributed to “My Death, My Decision”.

My Death, My Decision is a grassroots campaign group that wants the law in England and Wales to allow mentally competent adults who are terminally ill or intolerably suffering from an incurable condition the option of a legal, safe, and compassionate assisted death. With the support of over 3,000 members and supporters, we advocate for an evidence-based law that would balance individual choice alongside robust safeguards and finally give the people of England and Wales choice at the end of their lives.

 

The Health Minister Stephen Kinnock MP has told the House of Lords that the Assisted Dying Bill ‘strikes the balance between access and safety’. He gave evidence to the Lords Select Committee on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life Bill), alongside Professor Sir Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer. Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision welcome this clarity and call on the Lords to pass this vital legislation.

Speaking to the Committee, Kinnock and Whitty outlined that the Government has a neutral view on assisted dying. The policy and principle decisions are for Parliament, and the Government would make them work. 

Kinnock told the Committee:

‘Ministers from the Prime Minister down have stated that if Parliament gives its assent to this Bill then the Government will implement it. So I think what that clearly indicates is that the Government, as a body corporate, will implement this Bill.’

When asked about equality of access to assisted dying if the Bill passed, Professor Sir Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Health and Social Care, told the Committee: 

‘It is important that if this is passed, we don’t have a situation where the rules are so complex that only people who can afford a good lawyer… are able to get through the process. Most people who are dying of whatever cause have an average, literally an average, level of understanding, education in the law and all these other issues. It is important that it is clear enough and simple enough that they can understand what is going on and can get through the system in the last six months of their life at a point when they are going to be under stress for many other reasons.‘

And so I think this issue of equality is not just about a matter of importance; these issues of equality being brought up throughout the debate quite rightly, but one of the points of equality is people of all walks of life who are capable of taking the fundamental decision should be able to navigate the process subsequently, and I do think it is important that people think about that as they go through the debates that follow this committee.’

Responding to the same question, Kinnock said:

‘Our job is to facilitate the policy intent of the sponsor. The sponsor has made clear to us throughout that we are looking to strike a balance between fair and equitable access and safety. That’s constantly been the balancing act the Bill has had to go through and deliver and achieve. The view of the Government, in terms of workability, is that it strikes that balance between access and safety. Of course, if one were to amend the Bill in one direction or the other, then that may create questions about the workability of the Bill in the context of the sponsor’s policy intent.’

UK Government neutral

Last week, Sarah Sackman MP, Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services, said that if Parliament passes the Bill in its current form, ‘the Government considers it deliverable’. Sackman also confirmed that it is workable, the new offences introduced are enforceable, and stated that it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Richy Thompson, Director of Public Affairs at Humanists UK, said:

‘We welcome this further clarity that the Bill, in its current form, strikes the correct balance between safety and autonomy. We agree with the evidence given today that any assisted dying process must not be too complex and must always bear in mind the terminally ill person going through the process.

‘When it comes to assisted dying, the status quo is unworkable; it leads to unnecessary suffering, painful suicides, and people fleeing their own country to take control of their deaths. This is a stark contrast to the many jurisdictions that have legalised assisted dying and offer a safe, compassionate choice for the terminally ill.’

Dave Sowry, Board Member of My Death, My Decision, said:

‘People who are dying deserve choice, safety and compassion at the very end of their lives. The Terminally Ill Adults Bill is a major step towards giving these individuals that choice, and we welcome comments from the Government that the Bill is workable. 

‘Today’s evidence should give confidence to politicians who support the principle of giving people greater control at the end of life, but may have had concerns about the implementation. With clear safeguards, professional oversight, and the protection of individual rights at its core, this Bill presents a compassionate and responsible way forward. We now urge members of the House of Lords to reflect on the strength of the evidence and move decisively to support this change.’

Notes

Members of the MDMD team, as well as individuals affected by the current law on assisted dying, are available for interview upon request

For further comment or information, media should contact Nathan Stilwell at nathan.stilwell@mydeath-mydecision.org.uk or phone 07456200033. (media only)

Media can use the following press images and videos, as long as they are attributed to “My Death, My Decision”.

My Death, My Decision is a grassroots campaign group that wants the law in England and Wales to allow mentally competent adults who are terminally ill or intolerably suffering from an incurable condition the option of a legal, safe, and compassionate assisted death. With the support of over 3,000 members and supporters, we advocate for an evidence-based law that would balance individual choice alongside robust safeguards and finally give the people of England and Wales choice at the end of their lives.

 

The House of Lords Select Committee on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill held their fourth day of oral evidence, during which it heard evidence from a range of mental health, domestic abuse, and disability rights experts. My Death, My Decision and Humanists UK have raised concerns about the potential bias of the Committee and the oral evidence that has been chosen. 

What international evidence exists about assisted dying and domestic abuse

The Terminally Ill Adults Bill contains extensive new safeguards to protect people from coercion, such as multiple consultations with healthcare professionals and domestic abuse training for healthcare professionals and panel members. Furthermore, the Bill created new offences, up to life in prison, for coercing someone into an assisted death.

Lesley Storey, the Chief Executive of My Sister’s Place, a charity that supports victims of domestic abuse, said the Bill provides ‘rigorous safeguards where currently there are none’. In an open letter co-signed by more than 40 women, Storey said the ‘risk of coercion for terminally ill women… thrives in the absence of oversight, where there are no safeguards, checks, or balances’.

Assisted dying rates in every jurisdiction where it is legal see near equal numbers of men and women applying. 

Jurisdiction	% Men	% Women	Data date range
Netherlands	50.8%	49.2%	2023
Belgium	49.4%	50.6%	2022
Canada	51.2%	48.8%	2022
Oregon (U.S.)	53.2%	46.8%	2024
Washington (U.S.)	52%	48%	2023
California (U.S.)	50.1%	49.9%	2023
New Zealand	49.8%	50.2%	Nov 2021 – Sep 2024
Victoria, Australia	52%	48%	June 2019 – June 2023
Western Australia	58%	42%	2021-2024
Spain	50.8%	49.2%	2023

 

No country has ever found any serious cases of domestic abuse leading to assisted deaths.

First session: Domestic abuse and mental health

When asked about what safeguards exist currently, without the Assisted Dying Bill, concerning domestic abuse and the terminally ill, Cherryl Henry-Leach, Chief Executive of Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse, told the Committee:

‘We believe very firmly that there are currently no checks and balances to ensure appropriate levels of safeguarding, and that includes a person’s decision, not being influenced by a perpetrator. 

‘We are also concerned that those who are diagnosed, and that diagnosis has been confirmed as terminal, if there is pre-existing domestic abuse prior to that diagnosis, may be coerced to feel that their condition or illness is a burden to their perpetrator because of the dynamic of the coercive control that they have suffered prior to that diagnosis. So for me, at the moment, I would feel that it’s an unsafe system that we have.’

Dr Sarah Hughes, Chief Executive at MIND, told the Committee: 

‘I would concur, I think that we absolutely know that we have limited safeguards, actually, for people who want to leave the country for assisted dying support. We also know that, you know, many people do take their own lives. So we also know that that’s nearly 6,000 people a year. 

‘It’s for that very reason that we think that in order to provide legislation that allows it in this country, all of the levers and safeguards that we have would need to be developed and evolved significantly to ensure those safeguards were in place. We have coercive control legislation, and I think that’s incredibly important. Of course, that’s still fairly new in terms of the world of health and social care, criminal justice, and so on and so on.’

Professor Jane Monckton-Smith OBE, Professor of Public Protection at The University of Gloucestershire, opposes the Bill. She told the Committee:

‘I’m very pleased to see that I think domestic abuse and coercive control are being taken very seriously. That’s really good. But I have not changed my mind on the Bill thus far, because having worked in this area for a very long time now, most of the domestic homicide reviews, for example, and when things go badly wrong, they will say: “Let’s give them more training. Let’s give them more training.” I think throwing that at something clearly does not work.’

Session on disability

Professor Tom Shakespeare, Professor of Disability Research at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, told the Committee:

‘I think that we must be careful not to be paternalistic. The whole idea of the Bill is to give people at the end of life permission to end their lives, not as an alternative to palliative care, but another tool in the palliative care arsenal. I think the Bill strikes the right balance. I think that it has lots of safeguards, a cooling-off period, a four-year period of implementation. All of these allow a balance between autonomy and protection.’

Support for assisted dying is as high among disabled people as it is among the population as a whole. 75% of disabled people in polls say they support changing the law.

There are multiple safeguards in the Bill specifically for disabled people:

• The Bill requires the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice for the provision of information and support to persons with learning disabilities who are eligible.
• Clause 20 provides that people with learning disabilities, mental disorders, autism, or other ‘substantial difficulties’ in understanding processes or information will have access to an independent advocate to provide support and advocacy on end-of-life care, including access to assisted dying.
• Clause 44 of the bill requires the Assisted Dying Commissioner to set up a disability advisory board to advise on the implementation and impact of the Bill on disabled people.

Alasdair Henderson KC, Commissioner at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, told the Committee:

‘I think there have been good attempts to improve the Bill already to try and deal with some of these issues, the introduction of the independent advocate as a possibility. It’s also going to be something that’s very important to build into any codes of practice made under the Bill.’

Baroness Grey-Thompson DBE, former Paralympian and member of the House of Lords, is a strong opponent of the Bill and has so far tabled 24 amendments to it. She told the Committee:

‘Marie Tidball’s amendments around having disabled people on the panel is a step forward. Who that disabled person is and what experience they have – I’m tabling some amendments around that to strengthen that part of it. I think there should be far greater representation for disabled people.’

Ken Ross, Founding Officer at the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, told the Committee:

‘What this Bill has done is it has actually helped bring into the light a lot of deficiencies in other areas and I think it gives us an opportunity to have a look at those deficiencies and go beyond theory and suggest the training to actual practical delivery on the ground.’

How balanced is the Select Committee?

It has been reported that the Committee is weighted against assisted dying, with more opponents of legislation change than supporters. Analysis by Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision suggests that the experts so far called to give evidence consist overwhelmingly of those opposed to assisted dying. Apart from the Bill sponsors and ministers, those called to give evidence consist of three people supportive of assisted dying, nine against, and 20 neutral.

Who else will provide evidence?

The remaining sessions will focus on legal duties, the drugs used and how assisted dying will work in practice. The Health Minister, Stephen Kinnock and Chief Medical Officer, Sir Chris Whitty will give evidence in the last session. 

It will not hear from terminally ill individuals or those who have assisted loved ones to die. Clare Turner, a terminally ill person, and Louise Shackleton, who accompanied her husband to Switzerland for an assisted death, have deemed this omission ‘outrageous’.

In today’s session, Lord Markham asked the panel: ‘Do you think in terms of hearing the best evidence, it would be useful for the Committee to hear from people who are terminally ill themselves so they can share their own feelings?’ Dr Sarah Hughes, Chief Executive at MIND, replied:

‘Absolutely and thank you again for saying that. I think it is critical to being able to have a conversation properly about this.

‘Hearing testimony from people who have a terminal diagnosis would give us a level of richness and security in terms of understanding what those final months and moments are like.’

What happens next?

The Select Committee will not produce a report or make recommendations, but will take and publish oral evidence. The Select Committee will conclude by 7 November, and the Bill will then progress to its Committee Stage for detailed line-by-line scrutiny. 

The Bill will need to complete its passage through parliament by Spring 2026.

Dave Sowry, Board Member of My Death, My Decision, said:

‘There is a wealth of international evidence showing that assisted dying laws can work safely and fairly. In countries like Australia and New Zealand, strong safeguards have protected vulnerable people while enabling dying people facing intolerable suffering to make compassionate end-of-life choices. The data shows that fears of widespread abuse are unfounded, and that legal, regulated systems provide greater protection than the status quo in this country.

‘It is deeply disappointing that the Committee has chosen not to hear directly from terminally ill people or from families who have supported loved ones through assisted deaths abroad. Their lived experience is vital to understanding the real-world impact of our current law. Without their voices, this inquiry risks being one-sided and missing the opportunity to truly reflect the needs and wishes of those most affected.’

Notes

Members of the MDMD team, as well as individuals affected by the current law on assisted dying, are available for interview upon request

For further comment or information, media should contact Nathan Stilwell at nathan.stilwell@mydeath-mydecision.org.uk or phone 07456200033. (media only)

Media can use the following press images and videos, as long as they are attributed to “My Death, My Decision”.

My Death, My Decision is a grassroots campaign group that wants the law in England and Wales to allow mentally competent adults who are terminally ill or intolerably suffering from an incurable condition the option of a legal, safe, and compassionate assisted death. With the support of over 3,000 members and supporters, we advocate for an evidence-based law that would balance individual choice alongside robust safeguards and finally give the people of England and Wales choice at the end of their lives.

The House of Lords Select Committee on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life Bill) has held their third day of oral evidence, where it heard from Sarah Sackman MP, Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services at the Ministry of Justice. Sackman said that if Parliament passes the Bill in its current form, ‘the Government considers it deliverable’. Sackman also confirmed it is workable, the new offences introduced are enforceable and, confirmed that it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision welcome this clarity and call on the House of Lords to pass this vital legislation.

Speaking to the Committee, Sackman outlined that the Government has a neutral view on assisted dying. The policy and principle decisions are for Parliament, and the Government would make them work. When questioned on whether a medical examiner or a coroner should investigate every assisted death, Sackman said:

‘The certification of death at the end of this process is exactly that. It comes at the end of the process, which, as the Bill currently sets out, necessarily involves the assessment by two medical practitioners that the person electing for an assisted death is doing so in a manner that is free from coercion.

‘The panel stage, the multi-disciplinary panel, where again part of the eligibility test in clause 17 requires that the panel be satisfied that coercion is absent. And then, of course, we come to the medical examination stage. There can be, of course, no complacency about coercion in whatever form, whether it’s domestic abuse or whatever, but I think it’s important to set the choice that has been made, at least until now, in the context of that process.’

The Minister was questioned whether the Bill was compatible with the Government’s Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy. She replied:

‘The Bill as currently drafted provides a number of safeguards at various stages. The first coordinating doctor must make an assessment that there isn’t coercion and that the person in question is acting out of free will, displaying a clear and settled and informed wish to end their own life. That is then layered on with a second coordinating doctor.

‘You then reach the panel, where the bill tells us that domestic abuse training in order to identify the coercion that [the committee member] rightly highlights is mandatory for all panel members. Now, the adequacy and the sufficiency of those safeguards and the focus that the Bill places on domestic abuse and coercion in particular, that is ultimately a policy choice. But the fact that experts must receive training in respect specifically of domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse, to my mind is significant.’

Richy Thompson, Director of Public Affairs at Humanists UK, said:

‘We welcome the recognition that the Bill is both workable and compatible with human rights law. These clarifications remove any remaining doubt about the feasibility of assisted dying legislation in the UK. It is now time for the House of Lords to act with compassion and urgency to pass this vital reform.

‘When it comes to assisted dying, the status quo is unworkable; it leads to unnecessary suffering, painful suicides, and people fleeing their own country to take control of their deaths. This is a stark contrast to the many jurisdictions that have legalised assisted dying and offer a safe, compassionate choice for the terminally ill.’

Dave Sowry, Board Member of My Death, My Decision, said:

‘The Government’s confirmation that this Bill is workable, enforceable, and compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights is a significant development. While the Government maintains a position of neutrality on the principle of assisted dying, its evidence to the Committee today makes it clear that there are no legal or practical barriers to introducing this reform. 

‘That should give confidence to politicians who support the principle of giving people greater control at the end of life, but may have had concerns about the implementation. With clear safeguards, professional oversight, and the protection of individual rights at its core, this Bill presents a compassionate and responsible way forward. We now urge members of the House of Lords to reflect on the strength of the evidence and move decisively to support this change.’

Notes

Members of the MDMD team, as well as individuals affected by the current law on assisted dying, are available for interview upon request

For further comment or information, media should contact Nathan Stilwell at nathan.stilwell@mydeath-mydecision.org.uk or phone 07456200033. (media only)

Media can use the following press images and videos, as long as they are attributed to “My Death, My Decision”.

My Death, My Decision is a grassroots campaign group that wants the law in England and Wales to allow mentally competent adults who are terminally ill or intolerably suffering from an incurable condition the option of a legal, safe, and compassionate assisted death. With the support of over 3,000 members and supporters, we advocate for an evidence-based law that would balance individual choice alongside robust safeguards and finally give the people of England and Wales choice at the end of their lives.

This article was updated on 11 November 2025 to better reflect the British Medical Association’s neutral position.

The House of Lords Select Committee on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life Bill) held their third day of oral evidence, during which it heard from a range of palliative and elderly care professionals. This session further added to the wealth of evidence gathered by Parliament in its scrutiny of the Bill. Nevertheless, My Death, My Decision and Humanists UK have raised concerns about the potential bias of the Committee and the selection of those called to give evidence, which does not include those who are terminally ill or with personal experiences.

First session: Palliative care

Dr Suzanne Kite, President of the Association for Palliative Medicine, was asked about the international evidence that suggests that many people start the process for an assisted death without finishing it, and the process alone gives them comfort. Dr Kite replied:

‘I have read in the literature that it is a great source of comfort to know that it is possible. Relatives in Australia have told me that.’

The British Medical Association has a neutral position on assisted dying. Their briefing summarising key arguments says that an argument often used by supporters of a change in the law is that: ‘The existence of legislation allowing assisted dying brings reassurance and peace of mind for many people with terminal illness and their loved ones, even though only a small percentage actually use it when the time comes.’

Toby Porter, CEO at Hospice UK, told the Committee:

‘The debate on assisted dying has created more of a national conversation about death and dying than I have certainly seen in my time working in the hospice sector. And I think one of the questions for all of us in the UK is how can we broaden this very passionate, intensive, knowledgeable debate about what a cohort of people who may access an assisted death in the future to have larger conversations about death and dying in the UK which would lead to earlier referrals to hospices and palliative care services which would hopefully see a reduction in unnecessary intrusive traumatic treatments of people right at the end of their lives.’

Research from the Co-op Foundation showed that the debate has already helped 21 million Brits to talk more openly about a bereavement, with two-fifths (42%) saying that they now feel more comfortable talking about death.

Professor Sam Ahmedzai, Emeritus Professor of Supportive and Palliative Medicine at The University of Sheffield, told the Committee:

‘Places I have worked around the world and the colleagues I am in touch with have shown me that it is perfectly capable for assisted dying to come alongside [palliative care], and then become incorporated. There are places where hospices, palliative care services have absorbed assisted dying. Obviously, in small numbers compared to the general populations they serve. But it can work side by side. 

‘In the UK, we have come very late to this, but again I can’t see any reason why assisted dying could start in maybe specialist units in hospitals and in some hospices, which are favourable. Also in nursing homes. A lot of assisted dying happens in nursing homes, for instance, in the Netherlands.’

Professor Katherine Sleeman, Laing Galazka Chair in Palliative Care at King’s College London, told the Committee:

‘We’ve just published some detailed modeling work that estimates that specialist palliative care not only reduces distressing death but has the potential to save the NHS significant amounts of money, so our estimates show about £8,000 for each person who dies at home would be saved if they receive special expensive care and about £6,500 for each person who dies in hospital would be saved.

‘Palliative care is a high-value intervention. It’s a rare thing in health and care. It improves outcomes for patients and carers, and it improves value for the system. It saves the system money overall, so absolutely. That is where we should be focusing.’

Fraser Rickatson, Policy Manager at Care England, advocated for an opt-out model for assisted dying in care homes. He told the Committee: 

‘There are a number of services that operate on a faith-based operation of care, so there are Catholic homes, Jewish homes, Muslim homes, and in line with their religion. They do not believe in this type of care. However, in those circumstances, it is typically that the individual receiving care in that area will not want to consider that option.’

Most people of faith support assisted dying.

While Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision believe individuals should be able to opt out, they are against institutions being able to. Internationally, roughly 1 in 10 assisted deaths occur in care home settings. Banning this would disenfranchise a sizable group of eligible people and could also disincentivise the use of palliative care.

What international evidence do we have about assisted dying and palliative care?

International evidence shows assisted dying does not harm access to palliative care. In fact, palliative care usually improves in countries that introduce assisted dying. The Health and Social Care Committee assisted dying inquiry found that the introduction of assisted dying ‘has been linked with an improvement in palliative care in several jurisdictions.’

For example, since legalising assisted dying in Canada, the use of palliative care has risen by almost 10% across the population, which researchers say is almost certainly the fastest rate of growth of palliative care in Canadian history.

Second session: Assisted dying and elderly care

The second session of the day focused on how assisted dying interacts with elderly care. The majority of people internationally who access assisted dying are over the age of 60, however the Bill requires an individual to be over the age of 18, and therefore a likely significant number of people under the age of 60 will apply for an assisted death.

Dr Siobhan O’Dwyer, Associate Professor of Social Care at the University of Birmingham, has carried out leading research on suicide and homicide risk in unpaid carers, including terminally ill people who had asked their carers to help them die. When asked if the current Bill would be an improvement on the status quo, she said:

‘I think it would. We’re not going to prevent all homicides perpetrated by families but there’s a subset that we would prevent if the legislation were in place. But safeguards are important to prevent people being coerced by carers and family members who are already abusive prior to this.’

Professor Martin J Vernon, Chair at BGS Ethics and Law Special Interest Group, told the Committee:

‘The timescale is indeed problematic, whereby the time delays that may be entailed in going through a bureaucratic procedure. We’ve already said that existing bureaucratic procedures around other aspects of safeguarding are extraordinarily delayed – could actually miss the opportunity for that individual to execute their autonomous choice. So I think that is a real issue.

‘There’s a balancing point between having an effective safeguard that protects those individuals who may have vulnerabilities and supporting them to make an autonomous choice versus those people who may escape the system and not be safeguarded at all. But I do think having an over-burdensome bureaucratic process which actually obstructs somebody’s autonomous choice is against the spirit of this Bill.’

Caroline Abrahams CBE, Director at Age UK, told the Committee:

‘A small number of older people have come to us and said “Assisted dying is now a thing. Can I have it? “

‘And so, basically, what we found is firstly a lot of confusion among our older population about the state of play at the moment, whether it’s legal or not. Some people already think it’s happening and a great deal of confusion between an assisted death and advanced care planning.’

How balanced is the Select Committee?
It has been reported that the Committee is weighted against assisted dying, with more opponents of legislation change than supporters. Analysis by Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision suggests that the experts so far called to give evidence consist overwhelmingly of those opposed to assisted dying. Apart from the Bill sponsors and ministers, those called to give evidence consist of three people supportive of assisted dying, nine against, and 20 neutral.

Who else will provide evidence?

The remaining sessions will focus on disability rights, domestic abuse and coercion, legal duties, the drugs used and how assisted dying will work in practice. The Health Minister Stephen Kinnock MP and Chief Medical Officer Sir Chris Whitty will give evidence in the last session. 

It will not hear from terminally ill individuals or those who have assisted loved ones to die. Clare Turner, a terminally ill person, and Louise Shackleton, who accompanied her husband to Switzerland for an assisted death, have deemed this omission ‘outrageous’.

What happens next?
The Select Committee will not produce a report or make recommendations, but will take and publish oral evidence. The Select Committee will conclude by 7 November, and the Bill will then progress to its Committee Stage for detailed line-by-line scrutiny. 

The Bill will need to complete its passage through parliament by Spring 2026.

Dave Sowry, Board Member of My Death, My Decision, said:

‘What we’ve heard from international experts is that assisted dying can be introduced safely, ethically, and alongside palliative care, improving choice without compromising safeguards. Yet, it’s troubling that the Committee appears to be giving disproportionate weight to voices opposed to reform, while sidelining those with lived experience. A fair hearing must include the perspectives of people who are dying and those who have supported loved ones through this process.’

Richy Thompson, Director of Public Affairs at Humanists UK, said:

‘The evidence presented to the Committee clearly shows that assisted dying can coexist with high-quality palliative care, and introducing the legislation can provide a lot of comfort to the terminally ill. Yet despite this, the inquiry continues to sideline the very people whose rights and choices are at stake. Excluding terminally ill individuals and their families from giving evidence undermines both the balance and credibility of the process.

‘When it comes to assisted dying, the status quo is unworkable; it leads to unnecessary suffering, painful suicides, and people fleeing their own country to take control of their deaths. This is a stark contrast to the many jurisdictions that have legalised assisted dying and offer a safe, compassionate choice for the terminally ill.’

Notes

For further comment or information, media should contact Nathan Stilwell at nathan@humanists.uk or phone 07456 200033. (media only)

Humanists UK is making the following photos available to the media to use – credit to Simona Sermont/Humanists UK – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision have people and their loved ones who would be affected by this change available for the press.

If you have been affected by the current assisted dying legislation, and want to use your story to support a change in the law, please email campaigns@humanists.uk.

Humanists defend the right of each individual to live by their own personal values, and the freedom to make decisions about their own life so long as this does not result in harm to others. Humanists do not share the attitudes to death and dying held by some religious believers, in particular that the manner and time of death are for a deity to decide, and that interference in the course of nature is unacceptable. We firmly uphold the right to life but we recognise that this right carries with it the right of each individual to make their own judgement about whether their life should be prolonged in the face of pointless suffering.

We recognise that any assisted dying law must contain strong safeguards and the international evidence from countries where assisted dying is legal shows that safeguards can be effective. We also believe that the choice of assisted dying should not be considered an alternative to palliative care, but should be offered together as in many other countries.

 

Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 150,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.

 

My Death, My Decision is a grassroots campaign group that wants the law in England and Wales to allow mentally competent adults who are terminally ill or intolerably suffering from an incurable condition the option of a legal, safe, and compassionate assisted death. With the support of over 3,000 members and supporters, we advocate for an evidence-based law that would balance individual choice alongside robust safeguards and finally give the people of England and Wales choice at the end of their lives.

 

Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision are both members of the Assisted Dying Coalition, along with Friends at the End, Humanist Society Scotland, and End of Life Choices Jersey.

The House of Lords Select Committee for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has just announced its final oral witnesses, and it will not hear from terminally ill individuals or those who have assisted loved ones to die. Clare Turner, a terminally ill person, and Louise Shackleton, who accompanied her husband to Switzerland for an assisted death, have deemed this omission ‘outrageous’. Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision say this is an unbelievable omission that completely undermines the Committee’s work. 

It has been reported that the Committee is weighted against assisted dying, with more opponents of legislation change than supporters. Analysis by Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision suggests that the experts so far called to give evidence consist overwhelmingly of those opposed to assisted dying. Apart from the Bill sponsors and ministers, those called to give evidence consist of three people supportive of assisted dying, nine against, and 20 neutral.

Louise Shackleton, who was investigated for 10 months for accompanying her husband, Anthony, to Switzerland for an assisted death, said:

‘This is outrageous. I was investigated by the police for holding my husband’s hand as he died in Switzerland. Now the Lords won’t even hold space to hear from people like me. The law criminalised our love, and now the Lords Committee has silenced our evidence.

‘The state forced me to fly thousands of miles with my dying husband, Anthony, so he would not die alone, for mercy. He wanted this, he wanted choice, control, and peace at the end of his life. Did he not deserve that? The police then treated me like a suspect for being with him and supporting him in his own decision. How is that experience not vital evidence?’

Clare Turner, a mother of two with stage four breast cancer, said:

‘I feel very betrayed by this Committee. They have heard from lawyers and opponents, but not from those who would actually qualify under this Bill. As a woman who will, I deserve to be in the room. Excluding us silences the very evidence they claim to seek.

‘I’m not fearful about death, but without assisted dying, I feel fearful about the actual dying process. I want my daughters to have a positive lasting memory of me, and being able to choose the timing, nature, and location of that death would give me and my family incredible peace. I would like to die under the lovely oak tree in my garden, surrounded by the people I love. If the law doesn’t pass, people like me will be denied that choice.’ 

Who has been called to provide evidence?
The Select Committee has called 36 witnesses to give evidence. 

Of them, excluding the Bill sponsors and Government ministers, only three are supportive of a change in the law: Professor Sam Ahmedzai, Professor Tom Shakespeare, and Sir Nicholas Mostyn KC. Nine of the witnesses have a personal negative opinion about the Bill, or represent organisations that have strongly opposed the Bill. The remaining witnesses take a neutral stance.

10 of the witnesses had already given evidence to the Bill Committee in the House of Commons back in February. The Commons Bill Committee heard from the wife of a terminally ill British man who had an assisted death in Spain; the sister of a man who had an assisted death in Queensland, Australia; and the brother of a British woman with motor neurone disease who travelled to Dignitas in Switzerland for an assisted death.

We do not see why the Lords Committee did not likewise want to hear directly from those with personal testimonies.

No international evidence, either

One of the opponents of the Bill, Lord Goodman, wrote in the Times yesterday:

‘I’m a member of the select committee set up to probe the bill’s potential implementation and effects. Hence my internet search. The bill would provide for assisted suicide under certain circumstances, and I wanted to find out more about how it works abroad.’

This is ironic because the Committee did not request evidence from any international experts, including those from jurisdictions where assisted dying is working. This month, Uruguay became the 34th jurisdiction in the world to allow assisted dying.

The House of Commons Bill Committee received evidence from international witnesses at the start of this year. Experts from Australia and the United States told the committee that assisted dying was working safely and compassionately in their respective jurisdictions.  The Health and Social Care Committee inquiry into assisted dying also took oral evidence from a range of international experts in 2023. Furthermore, New Zealand, Western Australia and Victoria have produced detailed annual reports and reviews that show their respective laws are safe and compassionate. 

Dave Sowry, Board Member of My Death, My Decision, accompanied his wife to Switzerland for an assisted death in 2022. He said:

‘Listening to the questions asked by the House of Lords committee taking evidence about the Terminally Ill Adults Bill, you might not realise that this Bill is about terminally ill adults at the end of life who want a simple, safe process to reassure them as they live out their last weeks. These people must be put at the centre of every discussion at every step of the process, and their autonomy must be respected. Why aren’t their views being heard by the committee?

‘Instead, we’ve heard old arguments rehashed for no apparent reason other than to slow the Bill down. None of these arguments are different to the concerns raised in the debates that preceded the introduction of similar laws in jurisdictions with a terminal illness, mental capacity model. In these jurisdictions, this model now operates successfully and safely. Why hasn’t this evidence from abroad been allowed to be heard in Committee?’

Richy Thompson, Director of Public Affairs and Policy at Humanists UK, said:

‘It is unbelievable that not a single session for the Terminally Ill Adults Bill Committee will include terminally ill people. You cannot exclude their voices in this debate, and their experience is vital in understanding the workability of the proposed Bill.

‘What is crystal clear is that the status quo is unworkable; it leads to unnecessary suffering, painful suicides, and people fleeing their own country to take control of their deaths. We hope that peers recognise and listen to the lived experience of the terminally ill and understand why the law must change.’

Notes

Members of the MDMD team, as well as individuals affected by the current law on assisted dying, are available for interview upon request

For further comment or information, media should contact Nathan Stilwell at nathan.stilwell@mydeath-mydecision.org.uk or phone 07456200033. (media only)

Media can use the following press images and videos, as long as they are attributed to “My Death, My Decision”.

My Death, My Decision is a grassroots campaign group that wants the law in England and Wales to allow mentally competent adults who are terminally ill or intolerably suffering from an incurable condition the option of a legal, safe, and compassionate assisted death. With the support of over 3,000 members and supporters, we advocate for an evidence-based law that would balance individual choice alongside robust safeguards and finally give the people of England and Wales choice at the end of their lives.

The House of Lords Select Committee on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life Bill) held their second day of oral evidence, where it heard evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) and British Association of Social Workers, and then held a session focused on the role of coroners and medical examiners in assisted deaths.

It has been reported that the committee is weighted against assisted dying, with more opponents of legislative change than supporters. And Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision analysis suggests that, apart from the Bill sponsors, the experts so far called to give evidence consist only of those who are neutral or opposed to the current Bill. 

Royal College of Psychiatrists challenged

Ahead of the session, a senior professor of old-age psychiatry has branded the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ (RCPsych) approach to the Assisted Dying Bill ‘inconsistent with the college membership’. Baroness Elaine Murphy, a prominent medical member of the House of Lords, has added her voice to a growing number of RCPsych members, including a former college president and vice-president, in voicing concerns and distancing themselves from the de facto opposition stance taken by their professional medical body.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists officially has a neutral position on assisted dying, following a 2024 survey of 1,474 members that showed an equal proportion of membership (45%) supported and opposed the proposed legislation. But despite this neutral position, the college has become increasingly critical of the legislation, and has distributed briefings and made media interventions opposing the Bill. 

Ahead of the session, Baroness Murphy, senior professor of old-age psychiatry, said:

‘It is, after all, perfectly possible for the college to have a neutral stance and yet to criticise certain aspects of the Bill, as indeed we all do. However, recent college briefings and statements are totally inconsistent with the college members’ wishes to be neutral on the fundamental principles, and some of their statements are plain wrong.

‘It reflects a small group of college officers who are determined to undermine members’ wishes by opposing the Bill.’

During the session, Dr Annabel Price, College Lead for the Bill at Royal College of Psychiatrists, was challenged by Committee members about the College’s recent arguments against assisted dying. Lord Markham raised concerns, saying:

‘The membership is split 50/50 in terms of those who are in favour and those who are against, and I’ve been approached by a number of members of the college who feel that the approach that their views are not being represented in here. I know there are a number of psychiatrists who feel that the Mental Capacity Act is a perfectly adequate way of assessing mental capacity [for assisted deaths] in their professional opinion.’

Dr Price replied, ‘We have thought very carefully through our position and our views, and we ask for a review of the Mental Capacity Act’s suitability… This isn’t a framework that has been tested for this particular decision… Should there be a presumption of capacity for this decision?’

Where do the other Royal Colleges and medical bodies stand on assisted dying?

One of the biggest differences between now and the 2015 Assisted Dying Bill is that all of the Royal Colleges have ended their opposition to assisted dying and moved to a position of neutrality. The British Medical Association (BMA) also ended their opposition and moved to a neutral position in 2021. 

What else happened in the first session?

Later in the session, Lord Winston mentioned his upbringing in a deeply religious orthodox Jewish community and told the committee how he abstained during an assisted dying vote because he felt he couldn’t impose his views on others. He asked the panel, ‘We are legislating for society, for everybody not just for certain people – do you think in a pluralistic society we have the right to impose our particular views on society in general when we are legislating?’

Luke Geoghegan, Policy Lead at British Association of Social Workers, replied: 

‘No, we don’t have the right to impose views. I think the issue is that if Parliament decides to legislate on assisted dying, it’s something that people have to opt in to. It’s quite a rigorous process, and it should be quite a rigorous process.

‘It is a choice. We exercise choices as a whole level society… This is the most fundamental choice. So long as we are not forcing people into it.’

Should Medical Examiners or Coroners be involved after the assisted death?

The second session focused on a technical clause of the Bill, clause 38, which relates to the investigations of deaths after an assisted death. The evidence focused on whether a coroner or a medical examiner should investigate all assisted deaths. 

Dr Suzy Lishman, Lead on Medical Examiners at Royal College of Pathologists, told the Committee:

‘I believe there’s a misunderstanding about the role of the coroner in the investigation of deaths. Many people believe that it involves a post-mortem, a long, drawn-out inquiry, perhaps an inquest with a jury and witnesses and can cause delays and distress for families. But that is not the case; around a third of all deaths are already referred to the coroner. 175,000 deaths in 2024 were notified to the coroner, but only a small proportion of those had a post-mortem, under 50%. And it is entirely possible for deaths to be investigated by the coroner without a post-mortem examination. The coroner does much more than just look at the medical cause of death.’

HHJ Thomas Teague KC, Former Chief Coroner of England and Wales at His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, was pressed by a Committee member whether the word ‘pressure’ was adequately defined in the Bill. The Bill introduces a new offence for pressure and coercion with up to life in prison. He told the Committee:

‘We would apply the dictionary definition, it’s a very common English word, if it became an issue, you would just look it up. It’s broader than coercion… Frankly, I’m not sure it would [need further defining], the fundamental principle lawyers apply is the dictionary definition.’

Professor Aidan Fowler, National Director of Patient Safety at NHS England, told the Committee:

‘Should Parliament decide to pass this bill, NHS England will work with the Government to support implementation of the service as required. If Parliament decides that assisted deaths should be certified in the same way as natural deaths, NHS England and Government will work with the medical examiner profession to enable adequate numbers of the workforce to be appropriately trained and supported to support this new legislation and its potential operational impacts.’

Who else will provide evidence?
The committee will take three further days of oral evidence. The sessions on Wednesday 29 October will focus on social and palliative care and the session on Thursday 30 October will focus on mental health, safeguarding and disability. The focus of the Wednesday 5 November has not yet been published. My Death, My Decision and Humanists UK are calling for at least one session to be dedicated to the experiences of terminally ill adults.

What happens next?
The Select Committee will not produce a report or make recommendations, but will take and publish oral evidence. The Select Committee will conclude by 7 November, and the Bill will then progress to its Committee Stage for detailed line-by-line scrutiny. 

The Bill will need to complete its passage through parliament by Spring 2026.

Richy Thompson, Director of Public Affairs at Humanists UK, said:

‘Psychiatrists have a vital role in safeguarding decision-making, and many are willing to help do exactly that. We urge RCPsych to honour the neutral position its members voted for, engage constructively with the Select Committee, and ensure people nearing the end of life are treated with dignity, autonomy, and care.

‘When it comes to assisted dying, the status quo is unworkable; it leads to unnecessary suffering, painful suicides, and people fleeing their own country to take control of their deaths. This is a stark contrast to the many jurisdictions that have legalised assisted dying and offer a safe, compassionate choice for the terminally ill.’

Dave Sowry, Board Member of My Death, My Decision, said:

‘Today’s session builds on the enormous body of evidence that proves that the Assisted Dying Bill is the most intensely scrutinised legislation this Parliament has ever seen. It adds to the 2024 parliamentary inquiry, which received 68,000 responses from the public, 389 submissions of written evidence and held three days of oral evidence sessions; As well as the House of Commons Bill committee this year received 444 submissions of written evidence and held five oral evidence sessions, hearing from 50 witnesses.

‘We hope the Select Committee takes evidence from the most important people this debate is centred around, the terminally ill, as was suggested by the committee yesterday. We cannot understand how members of the House of Lords can take further evidence about the Terminally Ill Adults Bill without hearing from terminally ill adults. People who are dying deserve to be heard, they deserve the right to make decisions about the end of their lives, and they deserve autonomy, dignity and compassion.’

Notes

For further comment or information, media should contact Nathan Stilwell at nathan@humanists.uk or phone 07456 200033. (media only)

Humanists UK is making the following photos available to the media to use – credit to Simona Sermont/Humanists UK – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision have people and their loved ones who would be affected by this change available for the press.

If you have been affected by the current assisted dying legislation, and want to use your story to support a change in the law, please email campaigns@humanists.uk.

Humanists defend the right of each individual to live by their own personal values, and the freedom to make decisions about their own life so long as this does not result in harm to others. Humanists do not share the attitudes to death and dying held by some religious believers, in particular that the manner and time of death are for a deity to decide, and that interference in the course of nature is unacceptable. We firmly uphold the right to life but we recognise that this right carries with it the right of each individual to make their own judgement about whether their life should be prolonged in the face of pointless suffering.

We recognise that any assisted dying law must contain strong safeguards and the international evidence from countries where assisted dying is legal shows that safeguards can be effective. We also believe that the choice of assisted dying should not be considered an alternative to palliative care, but should be offered together as in many other countries.

 

Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 150,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns

The House of Lords Select Committee on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life Bill) held the first oral evidence sessions today, where it heard overwhelmingly that patient choice and autonomy are enhanced by the introduction of assisted dying. The Bill sponsors and three representatives from Royal Colleges all said that patients will be able to make more decisions about the end of their lives.

It has been reported that the committee is weighted against assisted dying, with more opponents of legislative change than supporters. My Death, My Decision analysis suggests that, apart from the Bill Sponsors, the experts so far called to give evidence consist only of those who are neutral or opposed to the current Bill. 

Both Kim Leadbeater MP and Lord Falconer raised the case of Louise Shackleton, who was investigated for 10 months for accompanying her husband to Switzerland for an assisted death. 

The Bill sponsor in the Commons, Kim Leadbeater MP, told the Committee:

‘If we look at the legal framework that the Bill sets out, we have two independent doctors. We have a multidisciplinary panel including a legal expert, a psychiatrist and a social worker. We have judicial oversight through the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner. We have five separate assessments of the person’s eligibility.

‘There is a requirement that the person is given all options that are available to them in their dying days. We have a compulsory psychiatric assessment if either doctor has any doubts about the person’s capacity. We have access to independent advocates. We have a Disability Advisory Board. We have new criminal offences, including around coercion.

‘We have specific training on mental capacity and on identifying domestic abuse, coercive control, and financial abuse for all doctors and all panel members. And we have rigorous oversight and reporting mechanisms requiring the involvement of the Chief Medical Officers and reports to Parliament.

‘None of that exists at the moment. So, in terms of safeguards, am I clear that this would be the safest piece of legislation in the world? One hundred per cent.’ 

The Bill sponsor in the Lords, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, told the Committee:

‘On the basis of the support we’ve received from officials, we have no doubt the Bill is workable. Experience from other jurisdictions confirms that expectation. This Bill builds on the extensive work done on this subject in both houses over the years. We have the benefit of learning from over 30 other jurisdictions who’ve made the change. Indeed, around 300 million people around the world have access to a legally assisted death. Bills to change the law have been introduced in Scotland and the Isle of Man. Reform is coming.

‘The current law in this jurisdiction is simply not fit for purpose. Just last week, Louise Shackleton found that having accompanied her husband to Dignitas, she faced 10 months of criminal investigation. Do people deserve this on top of their grief and loss?

‘Finally, constitutionally, at the heart of our parliamentary democracy is the primacy of the Commons, because they are elected and we are not. Ultimately, it is for the Commons to make the decisions on assisted dying. It’s not for us, secular or spiritual, to make the key political decisions on this issue. We should not assert that we know better.’

Professor Mumtaz Patel, President at the Royal College of Physicians, told the Committee: 

‘The Royal College of Physicians takes a neutral stance. However, we continue to have concerns around the practical elements of the Bill. What is good about the Bill, as you asked, is that patient choice is always wonderful, and we want to support patient autonomy around end-of-life care is really, really important.’

Dr Michael Mulholland, Honorary Secretary at Royal College of General Practitioners, told the Committee:

‘At the College, we’re pleased that patients are going to have the ability to make decisions for their own choice and their own health and their own death. And that’s something in general practice we’ve always been keen on. And we have discussions as people approach their death as to where they want to die, how they want to, if they have that ability to plan in advance, and we have. 

‘As a College, we moved from a position against to a position neither for nor against, but wanting to support our patients and our colleagues because we recognise the divide across the country and in the profession as to those who are for, against here, the process and what we.’

Professor Nicola Ranger, General Secretary and Chief Executive at Royal College of Nursing, told the Committee:

‘The Bill will never cover anything, but the principle is the respect for autonomy. When we get it wrong in healthcare, it’s often because we are being paternalistic… The underlying basis of the College and of individuals is that autonomy must be the bedrock of decisions. We must not have such a high threshold that the principle of autonomy is lost.’

Where do the other Royal Colleges and medical bodies stand on assisted dying?

One of the biggest differences between now and the 2015 Assisted Dying Bill is that all of the Royal Colleges have ended their opposition to assisted dying and moved to a position of neutrality. The British Medical Association (BMA) also ended their opposition and moved to a neutral position in 2021. 

Who else will provide evidence?
Tomorrow, the Select Committee will hear first about the workability of the panel that will examine each assisted dying case. As introduced in the Commons, a multidisciplinary panel consisting of a senior lawyer, social worker, and psychiatrist, overseen by a High Court judge, will sign off on each case after two independent doctors have assessed the patient. Dr Annabel Price will provide evidence on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych), and Luke Geoghegan will represent the British Association of Social Workers. 

The second session will hear from Dr Suzy Lishman (Lead on Medical Examiners at Royal College of Pathologists), Professor Aidan Fowler (National Director of Patient Safety at NHS England), and HHJ Thomas Teague KC (Former Chief Coroner of England and Wales at HMCTS).

The committee will take three further days of oral evidence. The sessions on Wednesday 29 October will focus on social and palliative care. The programme for the sessions on Thursday 30 October and Wednesday 5 November has not yet been published. My Death, My Decision and Humanists UK are calling for at least one session to be dedicated to the experiences of terminally ill adults.

What happens next?
The Select Committee will not produce a report or make recommendations, but will take and publish oral evidence. The Select Committee will conclude by 7 November, and the Bill will then progress to its Committee Stage for detailed line-by-line scrutiny. 

The Bill will need to complete its passage through parliament by Spring 2026.

Richy Thompson, Director of Public Affairs at Humanists UK, said:

‘Every single individual who gave evidence to the Select Committee today raised the importance of patient autonomy, of allowing terminally ill adults to be able to make decisions about the end of their life gives them an incredible amount of relief and control in their final days.

‘There was also further testimony that the status quo is unworkable; it leads to unnecessary suffering, painful suicides, and people fleeing their own country to take control of their deaths. We hope that peers recognise and listen to the lived experience of the terminally ill and understand why the law must change.’

Dave Sowry, Board Member of My Death, My Decision, said:

‘We were pleased to see that today has focused on the importance of patients’ own decision-making. We know from international evidence that giving terminally ill patients a choice at the end of their lives has a palliative effect; they can focus on their family and the things that matter without worrying about pain or distress in their final days.

‘We hope the Select Committee takes evidence from the most important people this debate is centred around, the terminally ill, as was suggested by the committee today. We cannot understand how members of the House of Lords can take further evidence about the Terminally Ill Adults Bill without hearing from terminally ill adults. People who are dying deserve to be heard, they deserve the right to make decisions about the end of their lives, and they deserve autonomy, dignity and compassion.’

Notes

Members of the MDMD team, as well as individuals affected by the current law on assisted dying, are available for interview upon request

For further comment or information, media should contact Nathan Stilwell at nathan.stilwell@mydeath-mydecision.org.uk or phone 07456200033. (media only)

Media can use the following press images and videos, as long as they are attributed to “My Death, My Decision”.

My Death, My Decision is a grassroots campaign group that wants the law in England and Wales to allow mentally competent adults who are terminally ill or intolerably suffering from an incurable condition the option of a legal, safe, and compassionate assisted death. With the support of over 3,000 members and supporters, we advocate for an evidence-based law that would balance individual choice alongside robust safeguards and finally give the people of England and Wales choice at the end of their lives.

Uruguay’s Senate has approved the ‘Dignified Death’ law, making the country the 34th jurisdiction in the world to allow assisted dying. My Death, My Decision is hailing this historic moment, and is calling on the House of Lords to constructively work on the Terminally Ill Adults Bill, so dying Brits can face the same choices as Uruguayans. 

The law was finally passed on Wednesday 15 October, when 20 out of 31 senators voted in favour. Uruguay’s lower house approved the bill in August with a large majority. Uruguay’s government must now implement the regulations. Similar to here, an overwhelming majority of the public back the change in the law, with polling indicating support as high as 82%.

What does Uruguay’s new law look like?

The patient must be:

• An adult
• Mentally competent
• Unbearably suffering from an incurable illness

The patient must get two doctors to determine that they meet the eligibility criteria and that they are psychologically fit enough to make the decision.

The legislation only permits the life-ending drugs to be administered by a healthcare professional and forbids self-administration.

How does that compare to proposals in Westminster?

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted dying in the UK, and is currently passing through the House of Lords, is quite different to Uruguay’s proposal.

The patient must be: 

• An adult
• Mentally competent
• Terminally ill, with a life expectancy of six months or fewer

In order to access an assisted death, the patient must have a preliminary conversation with a doctor, sign an independently witnessed declaration, have one assessment, wait seven days, have a second assessment from an independent doctor, wait fourteen days and finally have their case reviewed by an expert panel consisting of a psychiatrist, lawyer and social worker.

Uruguay’s law does not have a waiting period or a panel sign-off.

In contrast to Uruguay’s law, the proposed legislation here only permits the self-administration of life-ending drugs. A healthcare professional is forbidden to administer the medication.

What’s the international picture on assisted dying?

Uruguay joins the Latin American countries of Colombia, Ecuador, and Cuba in allowing some form of assisted dying. Uruguay stands out in creating a detailed legal framework through an act of parliament, while the other Latin American countries allow for assisted dying through court decisions.

Terminal eligibility	Jurisdictions
Expected to cause their death within 6 months	In force: New Zealand, 11 US states Passed but not yet in force: Delaware (USA) Proposed: England and Wales
Expected to cause their death within 6 months; OR in the case of a person with a neurodegenerative disease, illness or condition, within 12 months	In force: Five Australian states Proposed: Jersey
Expected to cause their death within 12 months	In force: Queensland Passed but not yet in force: Isle of Man
Have an advanced and progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unable to recover and that can reasonably be expected to cause their premature death. (No time limit)	In force: Spain, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Austria, Canada, Colombia Mandated by the courts but not legislation: Germany, Italy, Ecuador, Cuba Passed but not yet in force: Australian Capital Territory, Uruguay Proposed: Scotland

 

Dave Sowry, Board Member of My Death, My Decision, said:

‘Congratulations, Uruguay, on passing this historic and compassionate law.  The House of Lords should take note of the ever-growing international picture, where all over the world, nations are saying that dying people should not be forced to suffer at the end of their lives.

Almost everyone agrees the current situation is unsafe, unjust and muddled. The Lords must focus on improving the Bill if they can and not repeating the debate the House of Commons had.’

Notes:

Members of the MDMD team, as well as individuals affected by the current law on assisted dying, are available for interview upon request

For further comment or information, media should contact Nathan Stilwell at nathan.stilwell@mydeath-mydecision.org.uk or phone 07456200033. (media only)

Media can use the following press images and videos, as long as they are attributed to “My Death, My Decision”.

My Death, My Decision is a grassroots campaign group that wants the law in England and Wales to allow mentally competent adults who are terminally ill or intolerably suffering from an incurable condition the option of a legal, safe, and compassionate assisted death. With the support of over 3,000 members and supporters, we advocate for an evidence-based law that would balance individual choice alongside robust safeguards and finally give the people of England and Wales choice at the end of their lives.