James Ward is a partner and head of private client practice at law firm Kingsley Napley.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is now on its passage to the House of Lords.

In its current form it is said to enable the choice of early death for terminally ill patients with six months to live subject to the strictest safeguards of any country with right to die legislation.

As a private client lawyer, I am not the expert to consult on the ethics, shape and detailed legal provisions of the Bill.

However, I have been thinking about the practical implications it will have for families and the typical clients I deal with.

Much has been made about the fact the Bill gives agency to the terminally ill patient.

Any decision of the patient will need to be ratified by two medics and a judge as confirming the patient is of sound mind.

It does not empower relatives to assist in the lethal dose process and the current strict criminal law rules around this will still apply.

Yet, we all know that families will be part of the picture when the patient is weighing their end of life options.

In my experience, this is where financial as well as medical considerations may kick in.

Surely the person will be focusing their decision tree on pain needs at this critical time, we would like to believe.

You would be surprised at how frequently money plays a role in typical care equations.

The cost of care can be significant for terminally ill patients and I often hear concerns from sick or elderly individuals that their care costs are eating into their children’s inheritance.

Sometimes children will be banking on a future inheritance to pay off a mortgage, cover school fees or even enable them to retire.

Although often unspoken, this can create an underlying pressure about how long people live and are cared for whether in a specialist setting or carers coming to the home.

As unpalatable as it sounds, what money will be left behind may be a factor in the mix.

Despite all the medical and legal safeguards in the world, therefore, I can not help but think some decisions enabled by this new legislation may come back to money and inheritance at the end of the day.

Conversely some of my clients who have made sizable financial gifts for inheritance planning reasons, will be keen to avoid falling foul of the seven-year clock on gifting.

It is not inconceivable that someone may want to end their pain by embracing an early death option but be deterred by the financial implication for their beneficiaries if they do.

I have had a taste of these conversations already with clients around the new inheritance tax cliff edges created by Rachel Reeves’s recent budget.

A terminally ill patient has told me they hope they pass before the Government can take a share of their carefully curated pension pot. And sadly, this was not a passing remark in jest.

It will be up to lawyers and professional advisers like me to help terminally ill clients who engage their right to die under the new Bill with their estate planning and ensuring their will is up to date before they go.

We will also need to be certain of capacity and agency issues if there are any last-minute requests or changes.

Then there is also the aftermath. There is already a growing trend of inheritance disputes where a family member argues undue influence or pressure was exerted on the deceased in respect of the will they made prior to their death.

With this new legislation it is only likely such disputes will increase or become more acrimonious where objections arise as to decisions taken regarding the financial division of an estate.

One of the reasons Lord Cameron gave for supporting The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was that it allows shorter death.

Unfortunately, it does not reduce all the usual inheritance pressures that come with dying.