UK House of Lords member lauds 'assisted dying' as the new penicillin

As the UK continues to debate the potential legalization of assisted suicide, one member of the House of Lords stood up this week to defend assisted suicide and euthanasia with shocking statements.

Key Takeaways:

• Baron Roberts of Belgravia called for the passage of the UK's Terminally Ill Adults Bill, which would allow assisted suicide for those with six months or less to live.

• Roberts portrayed natural death as undignified and said life with a terminal illness can have no meaning.

• He balked at the idea that the bill would one day be expanded to include those who aren't terminally ill — yet that is exactly what has happened in Canada.

The Details:

Last week, Andrew Roberts, Baron Roberts of Belgravia, spoke in favor of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalize assisted suicide in the UK.

Rather than seeing assisted suicide laws as the discriminatory measures that they are, threatening the lives of vulnerable individuals, Roberts said assisted suicide may be the "greatest" medical advancement since penicillin.

Roberts stated:

My Lords, the measure before us represents the possibility of the greatest alleviation of pain and suffering in this country since Sir Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin 97 years ago.

It's no criticism of our excellent hospice movement to point out that no amount of resources given to palliative care can alter the ultimate result or abolish the fearful pain and indignity that terminally ill people have to go through unless they take so many painkillers that they become prey to weird delusions, essentially becoming different people to those their loved ones know.

• It's an odd leap to compare penicillin, which heals people by killing bacterial infections, to assisted suicide drugs that intentionally end people's lives. This is not an apples-to-apples kind of comparison.

• The idea that no amount of hospice or palliative care can prevent the "ultimate result" of death is nonsensical. Everyone dies. It is the manner in which we treat those who are in the last stages of life that matters. Do we treat them as a financial and emotional burden and convince them to die rather than live out their God-given days by comforting them, caring for them, and loving them with treatments aimed at healing, reducing pain, and increasing quality of life?

• It's presumptuous of Roberts to claim that it is undignified for terminally ill people to live out their days, and that it would be crass and uncouth of them to allow a natural death — as if caring for loved ones through their suffering is somehow vulgar.

But Roberts wasn't finished.

'So-called sanctity of life'

"Families gathered around deathbeds are presently denied the right to help to end their loved ones' suffering because of the so-called 'sanctity of life'. Even when that life has lost any possible meaning," Roberts said.

• Suggesting that someone die is not the same as offering to help them, as Roberts claims. It's quite the opposite. It tells them that because they are suffering, they are better off dead. Yet when such words are said to those suffering strictly emotional or mental pains, it is labeled abuse worthy of jail time.

• Who is he to say that a person's life has "lost any possible meaning" because he or she is ill? It's a discriminatory and ableist response to terminal illness.

• The sanctity of life is the belief that every human life is inherently valuable and sacred and deserving of protection and respect. Does Roberts not believe this? Does he believe some lives are more valuable than others? If so, who decides which human beings are worthy of life and which are not?

'Hecker tomb of grannies'

Roberts continued, "The idea that Britain is going to turn into some kind of Hecker tomb of grannies being killed off by families eager for bequests is ludicrous, and this bill has safeguards against it now."

He argued that the bill would not affect "the disabled," "the mentally ill," and "those with eating disorders."

But a glance towards the continued expansion of Canada's Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) bill demonstrates that just because an 'assisted dying' bill starts off targeting only those given six months or less to live, it doesn't mean it cannot or will not soon target others. Canada first legalized MAiD in 2016 and by 2021, MAiD was opened up to those whose death was not 'reasonably foreseeable,' allowing those with chronic illness to die by assisted suicide.

The next expansion is on the horizon, as those with mental health illnesses are expected to be added to MAiD in March 2027.

What will future generations think?

Roberts went on to say he thinks that "future generations will consider us monsters for stopping people from shortening their death agonies if they wish to, especially as the majority of the population and of the elected House support this bill."

People will rightly condemn this house if we refuse a person in desperate pain with only six months to live the right to choose the time and method of their death.

We spend a good deal of the time criticizing our ancestors for their antediluvian views on race, sex, and class but those people who come after us will stand aghast that we allowed some of our old people to die in pain akin to torture, rather than simply overturn a medieval and sadistic practice.

It is more likely to have the opposite effect.

Future generations could very well wonder why this generation was so hyper-focused on death and so eager to kill off anyone who was deemed an inconvenience, rather than finding loving solutions to help them and funding cures to heal them.

Reality Check:

It's important to note why Canada's MAiD program expanded so vastly in just about a decade: money.

A 2020 report submitted to the Canadian Parliament applauded the health care cost savings that came from the legalization of assisted death. The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) report‘s goal was to provide “greater budget transparency and accountability” on the issue, but it presented death in a positive light.

The report concluded:

• Assisted suicide represents “a net reduction in cost of $86.9 million” for the government.

• “Expanding access to MAID will result in a net reduction in health care costs for the provincial governments.” (emphasis added)

Doctors in Canada began speaking out in 2023, saying that they are facing at least subtle pressure from the government to use MAiD to cut costs for the country's national healthcare system.

In May 2025, the UK Department of Health and Social Care reported on an assessment of its own, which said that legalizing assisted suicide could save the nation's National Health Service (NHS) as much as £59.6 million ($79 million) annually. 

Killing people because they are 'sick' or deemed 'unworthy' was not a good look when the eugenicists of the early to mid-20th century did it. And it's not a good look now, especially when it boils down to saving the government money.

The Bottom Line:

The legalization of assisted suicide is part of the death culture that is plaguing modern society. Killing preborn humans through abortion and the sick and disabled through assisted suicide are not actions that work to advance culture, foster community, or improve medicine. Rather, they tragically ensure discrimination remains alive and well.