The House of Lords has witnessed a historic and emotionally charged debate over the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, a piece of legislation that could radically reshape the legal landscape for assisted dying in England and Wales. Over two intense days on September 18 and 19, 2025, nearly 200 peers took to the floor—making it the longest and most passionately attended discussion for any Private Members’ Bill in parliamentary history, according to Humanists UK and Sky News. The bill, sponsored by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, proposes allowing terminally ill adults with fewer than six months to live the legal right to choose an assisted death, subject to strict procedural safeguards.
Despite the magnitude of the issue and the depth of feeling on both sides, the bill passed its Second Reading without a vote, an outcome that signals both the gravity and the contentiousness of the matter. Yet, as supporters celebrated clearing this crucial hurdle, opponents made clear that the real battle lies ahead. As Sky News aptly put it, “Now comes the hard part for supporters... as opponents attempt to make major changes in the months ahead.”
What set this debate apart was not only its scale but also the unprecedented procedural move: for the first time, a Select Committee has been established to scrutinize a Private Members’ Bill from the Commons. The amendment to create this committee was agreed upon between Lord Falconer, the bill’s sponsor in the Lords, and Baroness Berger, and was accepted without a vote. This committee will examine the bill’s safeguards and procedures, hear evidence from professional bodies, coronial services, and ministers, and is expected to report by November 7, 2025. Only after this will the bill proceed to a detailed Committee Stage, where line-by-line scrutiny and amendments will take place.
The debate itself was a study in contrasts, with impassioned arguments on both sides. According to Care Not Killing, a coalition opposed to the bill, “the Lords gave the deeply flawed and error-strewn assisted dying bill a terrible mauling.” Dr. Gordon Macdonald, CEO of Care Not Killing, highlighted that “many experienced legislators confirmed that this has no absolute right to become law, even though it will progress to Committee Stage without a vote.” Among the concerns raised were the watering down of safeguards—such as replacing High Court oversight with a non-judicial panel—and the risk, seen in other countries like Canada, the Netherlands, and Belgium, that eligibility could expand to include those with mental health problems, eating disorders, or even treatable conditions.
Peers also warned about the bill’s possible incompatibility with human rights legislation and the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the inadequacy of opt-outs for carers of vulnerable people, and the challenge of protecting those with learning difficulties, Down syndrome, or autism from subtle coercion. As Dr. Macdonald put it, “It would be virtually impossible to safeguard vulnerable people from coercion or subtle pressure.” He further lamented that “a piece of legislation which has life and death consequences is still only being given four days in Committee, especially when compared to other bills with less profound consequences.”
On the other side, supporters of the bill emphasized compassion, dignity, and individual autonomy. Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, called the Second Reading “an important step forward for this essential Bill,” adding, “The deeply considered debate showed that assisted dying is about compassion, dignity, and respecting individual autonomy, and peers have backed those principles to offer choice to dying people.” Dr. Graham Winyard, a board member of My Death, My Decision, noted the record-breaking nature of the debate and urged legislators to “carry this momentum forward so that the law can be implemented without delay, bringing dignity and peace of mind to those at the end of life.”
Personal stories brought a poignant dimension to the proceedings. Juliette Sykes, whose husband Tim died of oesophageal cancer in 2021, told Humanists UK, “It breaks my heart that Tim didn’t have that choice; his final months were full of suffering he desperately wanted to avoid. But today brings me great comfort, and I hope no other family will be forced to endure what we did. Politicians need to come together, support this Bill and finally offer choice and compassion to people like Tim.”
But the emotional stakes were matched by fierce philosophical and ethical disagreements. Former Prime Minister Theresa May, herself the daughter of a Church of England vicar, described the legislation as a “licence to kill” and warned it “effectively says suicide is OK.” Her remarks drew angry rebuttals from Labour peers, with Baroness Thornton reading a letter from a terminally ill constituent: “We are not suicidal—we want to live—but we are dying, and we do not have the choice or ability to change that. Assisted dying is not suicide.”
Religious leaders were split. Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey argued that both the Church and the Lords “risk our legitimacy by claiming that we know better than both the public” and the Commons, pointing to what he described as “commanding support from the British public.” In reply, Archbishop Stephen Cottrell insisted the bill was wrong because it “ruptures relationships” and would “turbocharge the agonising choices facing poor and vulnerable people.”
Disability rights were also at the forefront. Lord Craig Mackinlay, who lost his limbs to sepsis, warned that in Belgium, children as young as nine had been euthanized, and expressed concern about embedding “an option for death in the NHS when its modus operandi should be for life.” Tory peer Kevin Shinkwin, appearing via video, described the legislation as the “stuff of nightmares” for disabled people, saying, “This bill effectively puts a price on my head.”
For all the passion and division, there was consensus on one point: the need for rigorous scrutiny. Baroness Luciana Berger hailed the creation of the Select Committee as a victory for those seeking to ensure “proper scrutiny of how these new laws would work, the massive changes they could make to the NHS and how we treat people at the end of their lives.”
What happens next? After the Select Committee reports in November, at least four sitting Fridays in the Lords have been set aside for further debate and amendments. The bill will then return to the Commons for consideration of any Lords amendments, setting up a potential parliamentary “ping pong.” With the clock ticking towards the end of the parliamentary session in spring 2026, the fate of the bill remains uncertain, and the arguments—both for and against—are far from settled.
For readers affected by the issues raised in this article, organizations such as the Samaritans and CALM offer help and support to those who may be feeling vulnerable or suicidal.
As Parliament braces for further debate, the United Kingdom stands at a crossroads, with the outcome likely to reverberate far beyond Westminster’s ancient walls.
