UK Health Secretary declines to guarantee safety of assisted-dying bill as lawmakers press for assurances

Health Secretary Wes Streeting declined to give MPs a firm guarantee that the proposed Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will be safe to enact in England and Wales, as a committee-wide grilling over the contentious measure continued on Wednesday.

The bill, which Labour backbench MP Kim Leadbeater introduced and which cleared the House of Commons in June, would let terminally ill adults who have fewer than six months to live apply for an assisted death. Applications would be subject to the approval of two doctors and a panel comprising a social worker, a senior legal figure and a psychiatrist. Streeting appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee amid questions about potential harms and the broader safeguards surrounding the legislation.

[]

Addressing a question about the bill’s impact on the health system, Streeting acknowledged a current “postcode lottery” in palliative care provision but refused to state whether the legislation could be considered safe given ongoing concerns about social care capacity and a workforce crisis. Asked whether it would be prudent to pass a bill with an auto-commencement clause set for four years hence, regardless of social care conditions, he replied: “That’s a decision for Parliament.” He then tried to steer the discussion back to Parliament’s role, noting the government’s stance as neutral on the policy.

To temper the line of questioning, Streeting added that if Parliament minded to proceed with the Bill, the administration would aim to ensure high-quality palliative and end-of-life care so people do not feel compelled to pursue an assisted death due to gaps in care. “That is not where we are as a country at present,” he said, stressing planning for robust care alongside any legislative changes.

The committee’s session also featured a pointed exchange with Streeting’s top official, Permanent Secretary Samantha Jones. Jones told lawmakers that it would be inappropriate to pre-empt Parliament’s proceedings and that ministers would be briefed on every aspect of the Bill as it moves forward. She said officials would coordinate with the Ministry of Justice to ensure ministers are adequately informed about the bill’s operability, but she declined to comment further on any specifics at that stage.

Supporters of the measure, who argue it would provide a humane option for those facing terminal illness, have faced resistance in the Lords, where peers have tabled more than 1,000 amendments to the Bill. Streeting’s reluctance to guarantee safety drew criticism from opponents, who say safeguards are insufficient and that the measure could undermine existing palliative care options.

After the session, Labour MP Josh Fenton-Glynn reaffirmed the importance of safety, telling reporters that “whatever your view on the Bill it should be safe.” He pressed Streeting on whether the government could back a policy that may not meet safety assurances, noting the possibility that current palliative care failings could coerce some individuals toward choosing an early death. “That’s unacceptable,” Fenton-Glynn said.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was introduced by Leadbeater in the House of Commons and has since faced extensive scrutiny as it moves toward potential passage into law. Its supporters argue that a regulated process would offer a compassionate choice, while opponents warn that it could outpace the development of adequate palliative care and lead to unintended consequences for vulnerable patients. The Lords’ substantial amendments and ongoing debate underscore the challenge of reconciling competing interests as the bill progresses toward a final vote.

In sum, Streeting’s testimony underscored a broader tension at the heart of the policy debate: ensuring patient safety and quality of care while honoring Parliament’s prerogative to shape end-of-life options. As the bill advances through Parliament, lawmakers are expected to weigh safeguards, care provision, and potential impacts on the health system, even as questions about safety and coercion persist in public and political discourse.