Comments made in the House of Lords by Lord Falconer, sponsor of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, have ignited serious ethical concern after he indicated that pregnancy would not exclude a woman from accessing assisted suicide under the proposed law.

The Bill, currently being scrutinised in the Lords, seeks to legalise assisted suicide in England and Wales for adults diagnosed with a terminal illness and given six months or less to live. During committee stage debate, Lord Falconer was questioned by Lord Mackinlay about how the legislation would apply to pregnant women.

In response, Lord Falconer stated that pregnancy should not be considered a disqualifying factor, suggesting that the Bill would allow assisted suicide even when a woman is carrying an unborn child. He referenced jurisdictions such as Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, noting that protections for unborn children vary internationally.

Lord Mackinlay highlighted the stark contrast between different international approaches. In Oregon, he noted, efforts are made to preserve the life of the unborn child where possible, particularly if the baby is viable. By contrast, he pointed to the Netherlands, where euthanasia may involve the deliberate killing of the unborn child prior to ending the mother’s life. He pressed Lord Falconer on which approach the Bill aligned with.

Lord Falconer responded by reiterating that his position was that pregnancy should not prevent access to assisted suicide.

The remarks triggered widespread condemnation from politicians, medical professionals, and pro-life advocates, who warned that such a stance reveals the dangerous implications of the proposed law.

Former MP Miriam Cates argued that the comments expose a deeper moral issue, saying that when society abandons the principle that all human life has inherent value, it becomes easier to justify killing the most vulnerable.

Baroness Spielman criticised what she described as a disturbing lack of ethical seriousness, warning that treating unborn babies as disposable reflects the same mindset that has normalised abortion up to birth.

Lord Mackinlay himself later described the exchange as “chilling,” while others across the political spectrum echoed similar concerns.

Political commentator Michael Knowles described the proposal as profoundly immoral, and Dr Cajetan Skowronski, a consultant in geriatric and palliative medicine, warned that enabling the state to assist in the deaths of pregnant women represents a fundamental collapse of moral responsibility.

Nikki da Costa, former Director of Legislative Affairs at Downing Street, said the Bill leaves far too many critical questions unanswered and fails to provide Parliament with the clarity needed to legislate on such grave matters.

Several members of the House of Lords expressed shock, with Baroness Maclean saying she was stunned by the comments and Lord Moylan remarking that even historical execution practices spared pregnant women in recognition of the innocent life they carried.

Pro-life organisation Right To Life UK strongly condemned the remarks. Spokeswoman Catherine Robinson said the comments reveal a worldview that denies the humanity of unborn children and warned that the Bill poses serious risks not only to unborn babies, but also to pregnant women and other vulnerable groups.

She added that the push for assisted suicide is driven by an extreme interpretation of personal autonomy that overrides the duty to protect life, urging peers to reject the Bill before irreversible harm is done.

As debate continues, pro-life advocates warn that the legislation represents a profound threat to both maternal and unborn lives, and that Parliament must act to uphold the dignity and value of every human being.