Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

My Lords, it is with some regret that I oppose this amendment, because, having heard what noble Lords have said about it, I can see distinct advantages in it. It may be that doctors can come to understand what is meant by ““quality of life”” rather better than lawyers and judges. When I was a judge and I had to decide whether a very young baby or, at the other end of the spectrum, a severely ill elderly person, should be given treatment to keep them alive, I and the judges of the Court of Appeal, of which I was once a member, were, where possible, extremely careful not to use the phrase ““quality of life””. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, that is a highly subjective phrase. What for some people would be a way of life that they absolutely could not endure would, for other people who had to endure it, be something worth living. Some people might be suicidal having, for instance, very severe back injuries which make them tetraplegic. Others live as tetraplegics with a quality of life that would be astonishing to most of us in this House, I suspect. Therefore, it may be that the medical profession can work out what quality of life is, but I give a word of caution and am extremely unhappy about the amendment, although I recognise the advantages of it that others have mentioned.