Date: Thursday 23rd April 2026
Release time: Immediate
House of Lords exposes a catalogue of fatal flaws in the “dangerous” Assisted Dying Bill as it approaches the final day of debate in Committee, this Friday, 24th April.
Peers have revealed “gaping holes” in the proposed legislation, which seeks to legalise physician-assisted suicide. Despite the plea made by several MPs for the Upper House to amend and improve the legislation, peers have faced significant pressure and threats from a small number of campaigners to truncate their work.
However, the depth of the work undertaken in the Lords has proven essential; out of more than 1000 amendments tabled to ensure the Bill is safe and workable, the Bill’s sponsor Lord Falconer, has accepted only two, yet has tabled over 70 of his own.
This resistance to amendment comes despite mounting evidence that the legislation, in its current form, remains fundamentally flawed and potentially dangerous for the most vulnerable members of society.
In one of the most stinging rebukes to the Bill’s structure came from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which formally described the proposal as “skeleton legislation”. The committee’s report highlighted “sweeping, unspecified and unjustified” powers given to ministers, suggesting that much of the operational detail, usually contained within the primary text of a bill for parliamentary oversight, has been outsourced to later government regulations. This lack of transparency means that the public and Parliament are being asked to approve a framework without knowing the full extent of how it will function in practice.
Furthermore, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has intervened, stating that it cannot be guaranteed that access to assisted dying will not be expanded by the courts over time, potentially moving far beyond the initial criteria promised to the public.
Clinical problems have also emerged as a primary concern for legislators. Evidence discussed in the chamber confirms the difficulty of accurately making a six-month prognosis, with between a quarter and seven in 10 being wrong, sometimes by a factor of years, raising the harrowing possibility that many individuals may end their lives prematurely based on an incorrect prognosis.
When confronted with this high error rate and the risk of “wrongful death”, the Bill’s lead proponent, Lord Falconer, dismissed the concerns, stating that the error rate was “not massive”.
This dismissive stance has done little to reassure those who believe that in matters of life and death, the margin for error must be non-existent.
The medical process itself remains shrouded in uncertainty, as the Bill is silent on which specific drugs will be used to end lives. With no licensed lethal drugs currently in the UK, the system would be forced to rely on “experimental drugs”. Data from other jurisdictions such as Oregon, show that complications occur in up to one in seven (14.8 per cent) of the suicides, leading to prolonged and distressing deaths rather than the “peaceful” passing promised by advocates.
Peers have also exposed the impact on the National Health Service, identifying “significant systemic risks”. Health Minister Stephen Kinnock has admitted that the government will have to “reprioritise spending” to fund the assisted dying infrastructure, effectively diverting money from existing NHS budgets.
Lord Simon Stevens, the former Chief Executive of the NHS, warned that the Bill represents a “Trojan horse” for fundamental change to the health service by the back door. He expressed deep concern that the legislation would encourage “self-coercion in the name of altruism”, where vulnerable patients choose to die early out of a misguided desire to avoid being a burden to their families or to “protect the NHS”.
This theme of protecting the system over the individual echoes recent findings in the most recent Covid inquiry report, suggesting a dangerous shift in the state’s duty of care. There is a legitimate fear that the health service will be incentivised to prioritise cheap assisted deaths over expensive, high-quality palliative care.
Further complications include the inadequate protection of medical professionals and institutions. Unlike other controversial medical procedures, the Bill does not offer a clear “opt-in” system for doctors, nurses, and hospices. Instead, it assumes participation unless individuals explicitly opt out, while failing to provide the legal protections to make this decision. This will put immense pressure on those who, for philosophical or religious reasons, oppose killing their patients, forcing them to choose between their beliefs and their careers. In a survey of palliative doctors in Scotland, more than one in four (43 per cent) said they would resign if their organisation undertook assisted dying. If this was repeated across the whole country, this would represent the loss of thousands of doctors.
Among other concerns in the Bill, is its proposed treatment of the vulnerable. Provisions currently allow for the lives of parents to be ended without a requirement for their children to be informed or for care arrangements to be finalised for those left behind. Lord Falconer argued that parents should not have to tell their children, nor does there need to be any specific arrangement for the child’s care within the Bill’s framework. While Peers have noted that individuals being held in care homes or hospitals for their own safety, including those who are actively suicidal, could qualify for a so-called assisted death as the Bill has been so poorly drafted. Conditions like Bulimia and Type 1 Diabetes could also serve as a gateway. While an “anorexia loophole” was begrudgingly acknowledged, Lord Falconer has not addressed other chronic conditions that could be classified as terminal under the Bill’s vague definitions.
Dr Gordon Macdonald, CEO of Care Not Killing, commented:
“The House of Lords have done a remarkable job in highlighting the fatal flaws in this dangerous and ill-conceived Bill. Their concerns echo the numerous professional and expert bodies, including Mind, the British Association of Social Workers and doctors’ groups, which have officially stated that the safeguards within the current Bill are inadequate, ineffective or risk vulnerable people being pressured into ending their lives early. Yet the Bill’s sponsor in the Lords, while tabling over 70 amendments himself, has accepted just two from those trying to make the Bill less dangerous.
“The level of arrogance displayed to those who have reservations about this Bill and failure by those pushing it to engage with disability rights and doctors’ groups, eating disorder charities and legal experts has been breathtaking. While much of the important work necessary to make the proposed legislation safe has not been done. As the Parliamentary Equality and Human Rights Committee pointed out, the Government has failed to do enough on safeguarding and coercion, while the Impact Assessment focused mainly on access issues.”
Peers also expressed concern at the watered-down approval procedure for an assisted suicide. Initially, the Bill had proposed that the High Court would oversee each application as part of a formal judicial process, similar to those used by the Court of Protection when considering removing life support, but this was downgraded to a non-judicial assessment panel.
Crucially, no member of the proposed assessment panels would have the authority to access police or local authority records to detect domestic abuse or coercion, compel witnesses to attend or take evidence under oath.
Finally, the Bill makes no special provision for pregnant women, ignoring the physiological complexities and the potential for a prolonged and agonising death that drug absorption changes during pregnancy might cause.
Dr Macdonald, concluded:
“As the House of Lords enters the final day of debate, these gaping holes confirm a piece of legislation that is not yet safe, not fit for purpose, and if approved would lead to vulnerable people being pressured into ending their lives early or worse. This is why we renew our calls for more investment in palliative medicine and support to meet social needs. We need more care, not killing.”
For media inquiries, please call Alistair Thompson or Team Britannia PR on 07970 162225.
Ends