Member's statement: Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Member's statement by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 14 September 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5685301
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Again, I rise in the Chamber to speak up for life. On Friday past, in Westminster, our UK Parliament chose life. The assisted suicide Bill was defeated by 286 votes to 270. The DUP welcomes that result. I am grateful to the parliamentarians for voting in that way, as it was not the majority position previously. Parliament has chosen the protection of vulnerable people. Our DUP MPs have shown up consistently on the issue and have consistently opposed assisted suicide, because the answer to suffering must be better care, not a pathway to death. I am especially proud of my colleague Carla Lockhart MP, who has led on the issue. She spoke with power and dignity in the debate on Friday. I have no doubt that her work and her words made a big impact on those who were undecided before the marginal vote on Friday. Carla set out our clear opposition to the Bill from a strong Christian and conscience perspective, as well as outlining how dangerous the Bill was. It was dangerous for those who cannot not speak for themselves, for the vulnerable and for the elderly. The defeat of the Bill is welcome and significant. Our focus should be on giving people reasons to live; ensuring that everyone who faces terminal illness has access to high-quality palliative and end-of-life care; and protecting those who may feel that they are vulnerable or a burden on others. Once the state crosses the line from protecting life to facilitating its ending, the consequences are profound. Parliament was right to reject that course. The Bill was not about easing the excruciating pain of someone who is nearing the end of their life by increasing a dosage; it was about allowing the administration of lethal drugs to end lives — to go against the very grain of the NHS, which saves lives every day. Terminal illness and deep pain come to every family. We have all lived through difficult times and shared in the devastating experience of the suffering of a loved one. There needs to be better healthcare as an answer to that.
We really need now to see the same determination to improve hospice and palliative care so that dignity and support are available to every person and family that need them. Friday was an emotional day in Parliament, with many powerful stories shared. It was emotional to see the Bill defeated. It is a testament to those who stood firm on their principles, holding their minority position, often feeling despair but continuing to stand up for the right thing. It paid off; the Bill was defeated. That was a welcome day for life in the United Kingdom.
448 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.10 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.77).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.12 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.77 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.84 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.12 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:15 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.