Uncategorized

The rate of debate on the Assisted Dying Bill has not progressed sufficiently for the Bill to pass, with only three groups of amendments, representing 50 amendments, debated today. While this is more than in the previous two debates, seven amendments on the first and 21 on the second, this still isn’t enough to cover the over 1,139 amendments tabled. Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision are disappointed that a small group of peers are putting the Bill in jeopardy by tabling a large number of amendments, but also debating them too slowly for the Bill to pass.

This group of peers is also dominating the debate. In the three debates so far, a small number of opponents have made multiple long contributions, with Baroness Finlay of Llandaff speaking for almost a tenth of the entire debate (one hour six minutes). This is closely followed by Baroness Coffey (47 minutes), Lord Harper (39 minutes) and Baroness Lawlor (33 minutes). These calculations do not include interventions, where peers interrupt others, points of order, the Bill sponsor or the Health Minister. Conservative peers have spoken for 40% of the entire debate.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark, the chief Government whip, said at the end of the debate: ‘We have completed three groups of amendments, which is less than I hoped for… I think that all noble Lords need to reflect on that before we resume our considerations of this Bill next Friday.’

Analysis by Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision has shown that seven of the most vocal opponents to the Bill have put forward over 600 amendments between them. While some of the unworkable amendments have been withdrawn, such as Baroness Coffey’s proposal to ban applicants from going on holiday, others, such as the requirement that all applicants, including men, undergo a pregnancy test, remain. 

The Bill must pass all stages in the Lords and Commons before Spring 2026, or it fails. At the current rate of debate, it will not pass.

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

‘It was Groundhog day in the House of Lords today. Despite a growing chorus of pleas to peers to stop putting barriers in the way of those seeking a compassionate death, the same very small group of peers ignored these pleas. It’s obvious that the concerted effort to block its progress by these peers, who are all against the Bill as a matter of principle, continues.’

‘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.’

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.

Update: Baroness Coffey has withdrawn this amendment. We hope it was in light of pressure about its cruel and unworkable nature.

 Original article presented below:

 

Liz Truss’s Health Secretary, Baroness Coffey, has proposed an amendment to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that would ban people from accessing assisted dying if they have left the country in the past twelve months. Some would find themselves ineligible due to trips before they even found out they were terminally ill. For most, this would essentially act as a ‘holiday ban’, meaning that anyone who wants to travel abroad for the last time, or visit family members abroad, would be barred from doing so. Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision are disappointed that peers are proposing such ludicrous and cruel amendments to the Assisted Dying Bill and urge Baroness Coffey to withdraw this one.

Amendment 15 says that a person would only be eligible for an assisted death if they were ‘ordinarily resident in the UK for twelve months and has not left the UK in that twelve months. ’ This amendment would therefore bar anyone from applying for an assisted death if, in the 12 months ahead of the application, they had:

• Been on holiday
• Received a six-month terminal diagnosis having recently been abroad
• Left the country for any purpose, such as a bereavement, work or legal affairs
• Gone to visit a friend or family member in another country

53% of Brits take a holiday abroad in any given year, with 1.7 holidays per person (page 4). This means that the share of the population that would not be able to access assisted dying because, at the time of their diagnosis, they had holidayed in the previous year, would run into the tens of millions – maybe as high as 15-25 million.

People would also need to hope not to have a six-month terminal diagnosis in the autumn, because more people go on holiday in the summer than any other time of the year.

This amendment would also face practical difficulties, as it would require the doctor assessing the eligibility to have access to the patient’s travel history. 

This is just one of the 71 amendments that Baroness Coffey, former Health Secretary and a Conservative peer, has put forward to the Bill. Analysis by Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision has shown that seven of the most vocal opponents to the Bill have put forward over 600 amendments between them.

Peers have been accused of attempting to sabotage the Bill, essentially causing it to fail by proposing an unreasonable number of amendments and deliberately making unnecessary speeches in order to time it out. Analysis suggests it would take two decades to debate all the current amendments. 

The Bill must pass all parliamentary stages before Spring 2026, or it fails. The Government has just announced 12 further days of House of Lords time that will be set aside for it, in addition to the four days that have already occurred.

Louise Shackleton, who accompanied her husband to Dignitas in Switzerland for an assisted death, said:

‘As someone who had to go abroad with my husband to give him the compassionate, dignified death he wanted and deserved, I find this amendment shockingly cruel. People fall ill having recently been abroad, people want to fulfil their bucket list in their final months, and people want to say goodbye to their family in a different country. Dying people deserve compassion, not cruelty. 

‘I am concerned that this amendment is not in good faith. It won’t keep anyone safe, or even to encourage worthwhile debate. To me, this amendment is an attempt to further run down the clock and block the Bill through procedure. That’s wrong and it’s undemocratic to use technical tricks to shut down what most people in this country clearly want.’ 

Graham Winyard, Board Member of My Death, My Decision, said:

‘The mask is slipping, and a small group of peers who are claiming to add scrutiny are proposing amendments designed to slow down the process. This amendment provides no extra safety and is unnecessary and cruel. It adds absolutely no additional layer of safety for terminally ill people looking for a safeguarded, compassionate route to shorten their deaths and end their suffering on their own terms. ’

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 Government has just announced 12 further days of House of Lords time that will be set aside for debating the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, in addition to the four days of debate that have already occurred. As a result of this, Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision have said it is time for Peers opposed to the Bill to stop using delaying tactics, known as filibustering, and instead get on and scrutinise it constructively.

So far, Peers have debated just 28 amendments to the Bill over two days. But many more than that number of amendments are being added every week. Last week, for example, 21 amendments were debated while 82 more were tabled.

In total well over 1,000 amendments have been tabled, with just seven of the Peers opposed to the Bill having tabled over 600 of those. Supporters have tabled just 87.

Unlike the House of Commons, the House of Lords does not usually have closure motions that force debates to end. Every amendment can be debated if a peer wishes for it to be, and any peer can speak to each amendment. Some opponent amendments are clearly nonsensical. For example, Baroness Coffey has put forward an amendment stating 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, or travelled to visit loved ones, from having an assisted death. The Bill is after all for those with six months or fewer to live.

Before the election, the Prime Minister pledged parliamentary time for assisted dying. He made the commitment when speaking with broadcaster Dame Esther Rantzen. He told her: 

‘I’m personally in favour of changing the law… I think we need to make time. We will make the commitment. Esther, I can give you that commitment right now… I will make time available if I am Prime Minister.’

Welcoming today’s announcement in the Lords, its sponsoring Peer, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said:

‘The right course now for all of us who are interested in this Bill, opponents or supporters, is to get together and agree the best way that we can use the remaining twelve days that we’ve got on the Bill.’

Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson commented:

‘We welcome the Government giving these extra days to debate the Assisted Dying Bill. It is time for those Peers who have been filibustering the Bill to stop doing so. Attempts to talk it out will only serve to undermine the legitimacy of the House of Lords and the constructive scrutiny it can offer.’

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

‘Too many members of the House of Lords, who are fundamentally opposed to the Bill, have been trying to time it out. They claim to be doing so to “improve” it. But the sheer number and implausibility of some of the amendments makes clear this is disingenuous. With the extra days allocated for debate – that they have called for – there is absolutely no excuse for them to continue going as slowly as possible in order to frustrate progress.’

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 will talk out the Assisted Dying Bill, causing it to fail, unless they speed up the debate. My Death, My Decision is dismayed that the unelected House is frustrating the will of the House of Commons, as well as the overwhelming majority of the public. On the second day of debate for the Committee of the Whole House for the Terminally Ill Adults Bill, peers debated only one group, representing 21 amendments. Meanwhile, 82 new amendments were added between today’s debate and the first day of debate a week ago.

Last week, we revealed that at their current pace, it would take two decades to debate all the current amendments. More amendments were introduced in the past seven days than were debated in the first two days of debate, which together lasted nearly ten hours. There are only two more days of debate scheduled this year.

The Bill must pass all stages in the Lords and Commons before Spring 2026, or it fails. At the current rate of debate, it will not pass.

We are far from seeing the end of amendments, too. Peers usually have until two days before a Clause is debated to add new amendments to it. After two days of debate, peers are still debating Clause 1. With 59 clauses in total, most won’t be reached for some time. 

Analysis by Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision has shown that seven of the most vocal opponents to the Bill have put forward over 600 amendments between them.

More than 900 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. The Hansard Society have pointed out that the Bill has an extraordinary number of amendments for a Bill of this size, with an average of 21 amendments per page; the next highest bill has only 5.29 amendments per page.

A guide to filibustering in the House of Lords

Unlike the House of Commons, the House of Lords does not usually have closure motions that force debates to end. There have been several examples of Bills with popular and parliamentary support running out of time. 

Henry Smith MP’s Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill in 2023 passed all stages in the Commons with cross-party and government support. In the Lords, a small group of pro-hunting peers tabled several amendments and refused to have them grouped, leading to long speeches on each. No further time was allotted before the session ended, so the bill ran out of time and fell. That Bill was only three pages long.

There have been accusations of filibustering in the past by the Lords over bills on hereditary peers, football regulation, and Brexit.

The Hansard Society has outlined five possible options to create more time for the Bill, but none of these solutions work if more amendments are proposed than can be debated.

Wrecking, duplicating and 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 stating 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).

Four amendments, Baroness Fox of Buckley (Amendment 150), Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Amendments 151 & 156), Lord Moylan (Amendment 152), and Lord Rook (Amendment 154) are almost identical and attempt to do the same thing. They aim to introduce a ‘gag clause’ to stop doctors discussing assisted dying with patients. Similar such amendments have repeatedly been discussed and voted down by the House of Commons at both the Committee and Report stages. They may be individually debated in the Lords in turn, if the sponsors want them to be.

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

‘Despite polite pleas to focus on their proper function, the House of Lords spent a second day going almost nowhere. The concerted effort to block its progress by a very small number of peers, who are all against the Bill as a matter of principle, continues.

‘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.’

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.’

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.

It could take over two decades for the Assisted Dying Bill to pass the House of Lords, even if no more amendments are tabled – unless the debate speeds up. That’s according to a new analysis by Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision. The House of Lords spent nearly five hours last Friday debating the Bill, but only made it through seven amendments out of nearly 1,000 tabled so far. Opponents of the Bill dominated the debate, speaking for three-quarters of it. At that rate, it would take over two decades to pass the House of Lords. 

As the Assisted Dying Bill is a private members’ bill and not part of a government manifesto commitment, if it does not complete its passage before the next King’s Speech – expected in the spring – then it would fail entirely. Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision believe 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.

Timeline analysis

On Friday 14 November, the first Committee of the Whole House took place for the Assisted Dying Bill, where Members of the House of Lords debate bills line by line. Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Bill’s sponsor, set a target for the House to get through ten groups at the first sitting. Yet only two of the ten groups were debated in nearly five hours, covering just seven of 997 amendments so far.

Private members’ bills are normally only reserved for debate on Fridays, and while there isn’t a set rule, there are typically only 10 sitting Fridays a year. This means at the current rate of debate, and if no more amendments are tabled, it would take over 142 sitting Fridays, or almost 14 years, to pass Committee Stage. This is before the Bill even makes it to Report Stage. According to the Hansard Society, Report Stage in the Lords typically takes up half as much time as Committee, so it could take another 7 years to pass the Lords.

We are far from seeing the end of amendments, too. Peers usually have until two days before a Clause is debated to add new amendments. Most clauses won’t be reached for some time. Nearly 250 amendments were added the day before the debate last Friday.

Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision analysis has shown that seven of the most vocal opponents to the Bill have put forward nearly 600 amendments between them.

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.

Committee debate analysis

Opponents of the Bill dominated the debate, speaking for three-quarters of it – over three and a half hours. Peers supportive of the Bill only spoke for an hour, only one-fifth of the debate, with the neutral minister making up the last 5%.

Conservative peers spoke for over two hours in the debate, more than twice as long as Labour peers

A guide to filibustering in the House of Lords

Filibustering is when politicians deliberately waste time during a debate by making overlong speeches, raising unnecessary procedural points or any action to deliberately delay proceedings.

Unlike the House of Commons, the House of Lords does not usually have closure motions that force debates to end. There have been several examples of Bills with popular and parliamentary support running out of time. 

Henry Smith MP’s Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill in 2023 passed all stages in the Commons with cross-party and government support. In the Lords, a small group of pro-hunting peers tabled several amendments and refused to have them grouped, leading to long speeches on each. No further time was allotted before the session ended, so the bill ran out of time and fell. That Bill was only three pages long.

There have been accusations of filibustering in the past by the Lords over bills on hereditary peers, football regulation, and Brexit.

Wrecking, duplicating and 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).

Four amendments, Baroness Fox of Buckley (Amendment 150), Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Amendments 151 & 156), Lord Moylan (Amendment 152), and Lord Rook (Amendment 154) are almost identical and attempt to do the same thing. They aim to introduce a ‘gag clause’ to stop doctors discussing assisted dying with patients. Similar such amendments have repeatedly been discussed and voted down by the House of Commons at both the Committee and Report stages. They may be individually debated in the Lords in turn, if the sponsors want them to be.

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. 

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.’

My Death, My Decision patron Jean Eveleigh has given evidence to the Human Rights (Joint) Committee, which held a one-off evidence session on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, specifically looking at the potential impact on the Human Rights of disabled people. She clashed with anti-assisted dying disability campaigner Liz Carr, over disabled people’s contributions to the Bill. My Death, My Decision is proud to support Jean Eveleigh. 

Liz Carr, an actress and disability campaigner who is against the Bill, told the Committee:

‘This session is testimony to the disability voice in the progress of the Bill so far. To the point that we feel that disabled people have a unique perspective, experiences cross over with terminal illness and are one and the same. The absence of our presence or involvement has led to disability rights organisations making a formal complaint to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.’

Jean Eveleigh, Patron of My Death, My Decision, replied that:

‘There are a cohort of people who, no matter how great palliative care is, no matter how loving their family is and no matter how much medication they are given, just cannot have what they would decide is a good death. They should be given the choice to decide how they want to die. It should not be a decision that is forced upon them by anybody else.

‘If I may come back to Ms Carr and the point about disabled people not being involved in the process, through written and oral testimonies, this is the seventh time I have given evidence on this Bill. At every stage, there have been other disabled people giving evidence as well as myself, so to say that disabled people have not been involved in this Bill is inaccurate.’

Disability Rights UK gave written evidence to the Commons Bill Committee, Baroness Grey-Thompson DBE; Professor Tom Shakespeare CBE FBA, Professor of Disability Research at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; Alasdair Henderson, Commissioner at the Equality and Human Rights Commission; and Ken Ross OBE, Founding Officer at the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, all gave evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee. 

Furthermore, Marie Tidball, MP and disability rights campaigner, sat on 90 hours of the Commons Bill committee, scrutinising hundreds of amendments. Tidball proposed an amendment to the Bill that 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, which was accepted by the Committee and is now part of the Bill.

Dr Henry Marsh CBE, a leading neurosurgeon who co-founded a charity to support palliative care in Ukraine, told the Committee:

‘There is quite a lot of academic literature and peer-reviewed journals looking at the question of whether there is evidence that disabled, vulnerable people are overrepresented in the population of people requesting an assisted death. There is a large number of papers, but nobody has found any evidence that that is the case. In fact, in one study, I think in the Journal of the American Medical Association, in Oregon and the Netherlands, which have had assisted dying in different forms for decades, people who would be considered disabled and vulnerable were underrepresented in the cohort of people wanting an assisted death. The only consistent predictor in most of these studies of people requesting an assisted death is higher education.

‘Again, it is important when you have the discussion on capacity. If one is starting to quote evidence from the Netherlands, we are talking about people who are going to die in six months’ time anyway. They are not choosing death over life. They are choosing how they are going to die.’

Disabled people support assisted dying

There are now multiple independent research studies that make up a growing body of evidence consistently telling the same story:

• A Nuffield Council on Bioethics survey (Sept 2024) reported that 75% of disabled people support a law change in England, compared to 70% from the total sample, a level that remained stable across 2024 despite increased media coverage.
• Whitestone Insight polling commissioned by Care Not Killing (June 2025), found 73% of disabled people support law change, compared to 69% of the overall sample.
• Opinium polling commissioned by Dignity in Dying (Feb 2024) put disabled support even higher, at 78%. 

Taken together, these independent surveys show a clear and consistent pattern: disabled people back assisted dying reform with safeguards, at a slightly higher rate than the general population. This is presumably why the vast majority of disability and medical charities have a neutral position on assisted dying.

Human Rights Considerations

On the same day, the Committee examined whether assisted dying legislation would breach the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Prof Liz Wicks, Professor of Human Rights Law at the University of Leicester, told the Committee: 

‘It is important not to be too paternalistic. The Bill is trying to provide an extra choice at the end of life. It is not compulsory; it is not an expectation; it is not to be used as a weapon.

‘In terms of other jurisdictions, there are certainly jurisdictions that have gone much further than this Bill would go with much weaker safeguards and provisions. A key part of this Bill is the terminal illness eligibility requirement. There are other jurisdictions, such as Belgium and the Netherlands, that focus more upon unbearable suffering as an idea. I can see there is potentially a closer link between that and concepts of disability.’

Paul Bowen KC, Barrister at Brick Court Chambers, agreed, outlining how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in 2022 on assisted dying in Belgium, Mortier v. Belgium (78017/17), which ruled that Belgium’s law does not violate the Convention (However, it did find that post-death oversight and investigation in that individual case were inadequate). He told the Committee:

‘The safeguards in this Bill are significantly greater than they are under the Belgian scheme. As I have explained, in the case of Mortier the Strasbourg court has already given that scheme a clean bill of health.

‘This idea of the margin of appreciation is the area within which both the Strasbourg court and also the domestic courts will not interfere. If the safeguards are at least as good as those in Belgium, you can be confident that the Strasbourg court is not going to intervene.’

What happens next:

The Bill is now at Committee Stage in the House of Lords for detailed line-by-line scrutiny. My Death, My Decision has raised concerns about the number of amendments introduced by opponents to the Bill.

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

Graham Winyard, Board Member of My Death, My Decision, said:

‘This week’s evidence session confirmed what we have long known: disabled people are not only engaged in the assisted dying debate, they are leading it. The idea that they have been excluded from the process is simply inaccurate and undermines the contributions of campaigners like Jean Eveleigh, Marie Tidball, and numerous others who have provided testimony, drafted amendments, and scrutinised the Bill in detail.

‘We cannot allow a single narrative to dominate the disability perspective on assisted dying. Multiple surveys now show that disabled people support a change in the law at even higher levels than the general public. That support deserves to be recognised, not dismissed. Respecting disabled people means listening to the full range of views, especially from those who are seeking greater autonomy and compassion at the end of life.’

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.

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.