Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill [HL]

My Lords, although the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, is not in his place at the moment, I thank him for his courage in pressing his concerns and for the tone in which he opened the debate. I think the debate has given lie to the claim in some papers that this is a clash between two world views—the Christian religious world and a secular one. In the debate we have seen convinced Christians speak for the Bill, and Peers not noted for their religious fervour speaking against it. Therefore, although Members of your Lordships’ House are divided, I believe we are united in our concern for those with terminal illnesses and in our desire that suffering people should enjoy the best quality of life until they pass away. It is the phrase ““quality of life””, introduced by my noble friend Lord Laing of Dunphail, which seems to me to be central to our concerns. It was my privilege many years ago to meet Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the hospice movement, and to get to know her and her work very well indeed. Her vision was to create places where people with terminal illnesses are treated until they die. There are now 231 hospices in the country and many hundreds abroad. They, together with many other palliative care units in hospitals, are experts in pain control. From the many letters I have received about today’s debate, I have noticed the emphasis that so many of the writers have placed on palliative care. One experienced doctor from the midlands wrote:"““It is my observation that good terminal care can usually achieve adequate pain control and that the concept of unbearable pain is mainly a mental one””." I am against the Bill for a number of reasons, not least because it would alter the precious relationship between doctors and patients and because assisted suicides could, before a few years are out, be treated as casually as abortion is today. It is interesting that, in its most recent pronouncement on the Bill, the BMA said that the unevenness of good-quality palliative care was a matter of extreme concern to doctors. That is why I join the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, and others in believing that this is where our energies should focus. If this debate leads to significant investment in those services that provide end-of-life care, our time here will be well spent. For myself, I shall vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.