On November 14, 2025, the House of Lords embarked on what is shaping up to be one of the most contentious and closely-watched debates in recent parliamentary history: the Committee Stage of the Terminally Ill Adults Bill, commonly referred to as the Assisted Dying Bill. With nearly 1,000 amendments tabled—an unprecedented figure for any bill at this stage—tensions are running high, and the future of assisted dying legislation in the UK hangs in the balance.
According to Humanists UK, seven of the bill’s most vocal opponents—Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, Baroness Grey-Thompson, Lord Carlile of Berriew, Baroness Coffey, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, Lord Moylan, and Lord Sandhurst—have together tabled 587 amendments. Overall, more than 800 amendments have been put forward by opponents, while supporters have submitted fewer than 100. Lord Falconer, the bill’s sponsor, has proposed just 35 amendments. ITV News reports that, as of November 13, there were 942 amendments in total, a number believed to be a record for the committee stage of any bill in the House of Lords.
The deluge of amendments has sparked accusations of deliberate obstruction. Supporters of the bill, including advocacy groups like Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision, argue that this volume of proposed changes goes far beyond legitimate scrutiny. "This volume of amendments is not about improving the Bill, it’s about blocking it," said Richy Thompson, Director of Public Affairs and Policy at Humanists UK. "Assisted dying has already faced more scrutiny than any other private member’s bill in recent history. What we’re seeing now is a deliberate attempt to derail a compassionate, popular reform that the public overwhelmingly supports."
Some of the amendments have raised eyebrows for their seemingly impractical or restrictive nature. For instance, Baroness Coffey has proposed that a person can only have an assisted death if they have not left the UK in the past twelve months—a clause that would disqualify anyone who had recently traveled abroad and appears unenforceable. Lord Goodman has suggested increasing the number of assessment stages from two independent doctors and a panel to five doctors and a panel, including a geriatrician. Critics argue that such requirements would be nearly impossible for terminally ill patients with less than six months to live, and note that a significant minority of applicants for assisted death in places like Victoria, Australia, are under the age of 60.
Other amendments have already been debated and rejected by the House of Commons, such as proposals to introduce a 'gag clause' preventing doctors from discussing assisted dying with patients. Nevertheless, these ideas have resurfaced in the Lords, fueling frustration among supporters of the bill and those affected by current laws.
Louise Shackleton, who was investigated by police for accompanying her husband to Dignitas in Switzerland, described her experience in stark terms. "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."
Beyond personal stories, the bill’s journey through Parliament has already been exhaustive. The Health and Social Care Committee’s 2024 inquiry into assisted dying received 63,000 public responses, over 300 written submissions, two closed-door roundtables, and five oral evidence sessions. The Commons Bill Committee took evidence from 50 witnesses, reviewed 444 pieces of written evidence, and spent over 100 hours scrutinizing the bill. As the Hansard Society noted, for a 51-page bill, the tally of 942 amendments is extraordinary. For comparison, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill (137 pages) attracted 725 amendments, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (180 pages) had 652, and the Employment Rights Bill (299 pages) had 646—all of which have since completed their committee stages and were much longer bills.
Supporters of the Assisted Dying Bill argue that the Lords’ role should be to refine and improve legislation, not to block a measure that has passed the Commons with a clear majority and enjoys widespread public support. In a letter signed by 65 peers, including Neil Kinnock, Ruth Davidson, and Robert Winston, colleagues were reminded, “it is not our role to frustrate the clear democratic mandate” of the elected chamber. Yet, as ITV News highlights, the Lords Speaker cannot expedite debate or force the grouping of similar amendments, leaving the process vulnerable to filibuster by opponents who insist each amendment be debated individually—a tactic known as "degrouping."
Opponents, however, maintain that their actions are justified. They argue that the bill is fundamentally flawed and requires rigorous scrutiny, particularly given its life-and-death implications. As one opponent told ITV News, "The Lords are literally doing the job we are supposed to do." Catherine Robinson of Right to Life UK echoed these concerns, writing that "Peers, including those who are, in principle, supportive of assisted suicide, are increasingly identifying how flawed this dangerous Bill is. It must never become law." She noted that over 200 peers registered to speak at the bill’s Second Reading, with more than two-thirds opposing it.
The debate over assisted dying is not confined to Westminster. In Scotland, the McArthur Assisted Suicide Bill began Stage 2 at Holyrood on November 12, with over 250 amendments proposed. The committee overseeing this stage is predominantly pro-assisted suicide, yet several proposed safeguards—such as requiring adequate palliative care before approval or restricting eligibility to those with less than six months to live—were voted down. This has fueled concerns among opponents about the direction of assisted dying legislation more broadly.
Disability rights have also emerged as a central issue. During a special evidence session on November 12, chaired by Lord Alton, disability rights activist and actor Liz Carr warned of the risks that assisted suicide laws pose for people with disabilities. She argued that the boundaries between terminal illness and disability are blurred, making it dangerously easy for vulnerable individuals to meet eligibility criteria. Carr advocated for improved end-of-life care, rather than legislation to hasten death.
Yet advocates for reform, such as My Death, My Decision, insist that robust safeguards can be put in place, as demonstrated in countries where assisted dying is legal. They argue that the choice of assisted dying should not be seen as an alternative to palliative care, but as an additional option for those suffering unbearably at the end of life. "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," said Dave Sowry, a board member of the organization.
As the Lords wade through a record-breaking number of amendments, the fate of the Assisted Dying Bill will ultimately test not only the chamber’s procedural resilience but also the country’s willingness to confront one of the most profound ethical questions of our time. For now, the debate continues, watched closely by campaigners, critics, and those for whom the stakes could not be higher.
