---

Assisted Dying

My Lords, my name was omitted from the first printing of the Speakers List so I apologise if I am surprising anyone. Many points have been made. I just wish to stress that if there is an independent inquiry—whatever "independent" might mean here—it should recognise that the safety of the people is the fundamental purpose of legislation. In my view, the draft legislation that we have debated in the past has not paid sufficient attention to that. This debate has been polarised between autonomous choice and those who do not favour it. If we get serious about autonomy, we have to realise that much choice is impulsive, and measures have been suggested for dealing with that. However, I have not seen any good way for dealing with choices made when depressed, and we have not even begun to discuss choices made out of deference. On the other side, we see sentimental references to compassionate friends and family. Friends and family are sorely tried by terminal illness, and they have a plurality of complex motivations. That may include great compassion, but one has to recognise that they may also be heirs, they may be burdened financially by paying for care or they may be burdened emotionally and physically by the task of caring. We have to get a little further before we are even ready to think about the terms of reference for a supposedly independent inquiry, and I hope that any such inquiry would test its conclusions by attempting to draft legislation that could meet the standard of not endangering members of the public.