Opponents Divide as Terminally Ill People and Families Unite

Opposition fractures as long-standing opponent of assisted dying, Baroness Butler-Sloss cautions that blocking the Bill risks “irreparably” eroding reputation of the Lords.

As terminally ill people and their families united in Parliament Square today, with many also watching from the House of Lords gallery, peers were urged to progress the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. In a striking intervention, longstanding in-principle opponent Baroness Butler-Sloss urged the House to stop delaying the Bill and to ensure it reaches its Third Reading, warning that continued obstruction risks serious damage to the reputation of the Lords.

In today’s debate, Baroness Butler-Sloss said:

“I don’t like the Bill, but I am here like other noble lords to try and make it work… It needs scrutiny. It needs improvement. But we must get it to Third Reading.  If we don’t, there is a very real danger that the reputation of this House – which not only I, but all your Lordships care about deeply – will be, or possibly will be, irreparably eroded.”

This unusual intervention from one of the Bill’s most recognised critics underscores a growing split among opponents in the Lords. While some peers continue to slow the Bill’s progress, others, including those who oppose the legislation in principle, are calling for constructive scrutiny rather than procedural obstruction. Four days in, peers have debated just 103 amendments – less than 10% of the 1054 total – reaching only Group 10, a milestone originally expected after day one.Among those present today was Nathaniel Dye MBE, a terminally ill campaigner living with terminal bowel cancer. Nat is in his final 100 days of life and is one of the voices urging peers not to lose sight of the human impact of delay.

Nathaniel Dye said:

“Time is not exactly something I have in abundance. Every day that the Lords delay this Bill is another day dying people like me face the very real possibility of a death without choice, without dignity – and without peace. We are united in this call: progress the Bill, improve it where needed, but do not let procedural games deny dying people the right to choose how we face the end of our lives.”

Sarah Wootton, CEO of Dignity in Dying, said:

“Today was a significant moment in the assisted dying debate, with recognition, even by those who oppose assisted dying, that unnecessary delays to the Bill are unjust and create serious risks for the House of Lords. It is now incumbent on all peers and the government to ensure committee stage can be completed in full within a reasonable timeframe so the Bill can be returned to the elected Chamber.”

“The turnout today shows just how united terminally ill people and their families are in calling for compassion, dignity and progress. They came to Parliament Square, and watched from the gallery, because time is something they do not have to waste.”

“While the vast majority of peers understand their responsibility to scrutinise this Bill and allow it to progress, a minority of hardline opponents are exploiting procedure in the unelected Chamber in an attempt to sabotage it altogether. Seven unelected individuals should not be allowed to override the clear will of Parliament or deny dying people the hope and reassurance this Bill offers. There must now be a way through, for the sake of the House, and above all for the people whose lives are directly affected by every day of delay.”

An amendment debated today in Committee would require all applicants for assisted dying to provide a negative pregnancy test as part of the eligibility process, without specifying clinical discretion or limiting the requirement to cases where pregnancy is possible.

Sarah Wootton added:

“This amendment is a blunt and unnecessary intrusion into end-of-life care. As drafted, it would force every applicant — regardless of sex, age or medical reality — to produce a negative pregnancy test.”

“It also fails to trust pregnant women to make informed choices about their own bodies at the end of life. If the intention is to address the rare and complex circumstances of pregnancy during terminal illness, then the amendment fails entirely to do so. It does not trust doctors to make routine clinical judgments, risks discrimination and stigma, and imposes yet another burden on dying people at a time when care should be compassionate, proportionate and person-centred.”

*ENDS*

For more information please contact Tom Steen, Media & Campaigns Officer at tom.steen@dignityindying.org.uk or 07356135578.