June 2025

I am going to finish. There will be stories of suicide attempts, post-traumatic stress disorder, lonely trips to Switzerland, police investigations, and everything else we have all heard of in recent months. As the Commission on Assisted Dying said in 2011, 14 years ago: “The current legal status of assisted dying [in the UK] is inadequate and incoherent. It outsources a healthcare issue abroad, especially to Dignitas, instead of the Government and Parliament assuming responsibility.” That was 1

I am not going to take any more interventions, because lots of people want to speak. Then there are the criminal offences that the Bill introduces—none of which exist now—including life imprisonment for anyone who induces another person to take the approved substance, and 14 years in prison for coercion, dishonesty or pressure. It is a robust process that goes further than any other piece of legislation in the world, and it is far safer and significantly more compassionate than what we have now.

I am going to finish shortly. Surely we should all have the right to decide what happens to our bodies and decide when enough is enough. Of course, giving people the right to choose does not take away the right not to choose. Today, we can vote with either our hearts or with our heads, but either way, we should end up in the same Lobby. On a compassionate, human level, and as responsible lawmakers, we should support this desperately needed reform, which is rigorous, practical and safe, and which

Parliamentary appearance by Kim Leadbeater

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. It is an honour and a privilege to open the debate on Third Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. It has been a long journey to get here, and I do not underestimate the significance of this day. It is not often that we are asked to wrestle with issues of morality, ethics and humanity, but with great privilege in this job comes great responsibility, and never more so than at a time like this. Benjamin Franklin told us tha

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think what he is saying is that people have got different views, and they do have different views; we have different views in this House, and different people in different professions have different views. Every royal college has a neutral position on assisted dying because of that. I have been pleased to work with Members on all sides of the debate to ensure that this legislation is something that Parliament can be proud of, and the many safegu

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and she is absolutely right; the detail does matter. That is why I am so grateful to colleagues who have engaged in the detail. We know that there are different views within the public, and we have to take on board the concerns of vulnerable groups—that is why the safeguards are so important—but I would also say that there is no one more vulnerable than someone who is dying.

I am just going to make some progress. Patients must have “an inevitably progressive illness or disease which cannot be reversed by treatment” and a person is not considered to be terminally ill only because they have a disability or a mental disorder. These clear, strict criteria, plus the multiple capacity assessments, exclude possible serious mental health disorders such as anorexia. I was also very pleased to support the change advocated for by Marie Curie and Hospice UK, which would ensure

I thank him for his intervention, but I would say, as I have said previously, that people working in palliative care have a mixed range of views on this subject. I have met with palliative care doctors, and some are very supportive of a change in the law because of the suffering they have seen.

I am just going to make some progress, if I may. But, as I was saying, it is an either/or decision for us today: either we vote for the safe, effective, workable reform contained in this Bill, or we say that the status quo is acceptable. Over recent months, I have heard hundreds of stories from people who have lost loved ones in deeply difficult and traumatic circumstances, along with many terminally ill people themselves. I spent some time with some of these families yesterday. They are real pe

I think we have covered that point already. These are not homogeneous groups of people; they have different views and opinions. If we look at the inconsistencies in the current law, it just does not make sense. If someone with a terminal illness voluntarily stops eating and drinking, it is legal for them to starve themselves to death. A competent patient has the right to refuse foods and fluids even if they will die. The exercising of that right is sometimes proposed as an alternative to assiste

I will make some progress. We have a system in which it legal for someone to starve themselves to death, which can take days or weeks, but where it is not legal for someone to seek assistance from a doctor to take an approved substance themselves to end their pain or suffering and take back control in their dying days. It is also legal in this country for someone to discharge themselves from medical care or refuse life-sustaining treatment such as ventilation, CPR or antibiotics, as long as they