Lords Assisted Dying Select Committee to begin taking evidence

The House of Lords Select Committee on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will hold two oral evidence sessions this week. It has been reported that the committee is weighted against assisted dying, with more opponents of legislation change than supporters. Humanists UK 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.

Who is giving evidence this week?

On Wednesday, the Select Committee will hear from the Bill sponsors, Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Kim Leadbeater MP, before hearing from representatives of three of the royal medical colleges: Professor Mumtaz Patel (President at Royal College of Physicians), Dr Michael Mulholland (Honorary Secretary at Royal College of General Practitioners), and Professor Nicola Ranger (General Secretary and Chief Executive at Royal College of Nursing).

On Thursday, 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).

Where do the Royal Colleges 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 also ended their opposition and moved to a neutral position in 2021. Nevertheless, RCPsych has been increasingly critical of the Bill, to the point that seven RCPsych members, including a former college president and vice-president, have voiced concern and distanced themselves from the opposition stance taken by the medical body.

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. 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 move to establish a Select Committee was made during the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill’s Second Reading in the House of Lords. It 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:

‘This week of evidence-gathering will continue the unprecedented scrutiny that this Bill has received. No other Private Members’ Bill in history has ever received this many hours of debate, this amount of expert evidence, or this amount of public attention. But at least one session should include terminally ill people and the loved ones of those who have received an assisted death abroad. You cannot exclude their voices in this debate, and their experience will be 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.’