Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateBaroness Jay of Paddington
Main Page: Baroness Jay of Paddington (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Baroness Jay of Paddington's debates with the Department of Health and Social Care
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords Chamber
Lord Rook (Lab)
With the greatest respect, that is not the conversation I am trying to have here. The conversation is about the necessity that someone who is going through the process has continuity of care and a relationship with that GP. We are suggesting that someone who is after a state-assisted end-of-life process should have the opportunity to see that GP on a number of occasions so that their judgment can be made in the context of continuity of care, not in one appointment.
To pick up the noble Lord’s questions, this amendment would not block access. It would not frustrate autonomy. It would simply ensure that assisted dying does not begin from nowhere. It grounds a grave decision in a minimal but essential relationship with the health service that is charged with safeguarding the person in question. Supporting autonomy requires a supportive context. It requires knowing whether a request reflects a settled conviction, a moment of despair, untreated depression or pressure that the patient feels unable to articulate. These things cannot be reliably assessed in isolation. Above all, care is relational. If Parliament is to contemplate legislation under which the state may participate in deliberately ending life, the very least we must insist on is that such decisions take place within the context of real and primary medical relationships, not on the periphery of the system.
This amendment would strengthen residency safeguards, improve the evidential foundation for clinicians, reduce the risk of doctor shopping and respect the seriousness of what the Bill proposes by rooting it in genuine and consistent care. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Can I ask the noble Lord, having cited the doctor Michael Mulholland as a great authority in relation to his evidence to the Select Committee, whether he also accepts what Dr Mulholland said to the Select Committee? He said:
“As GPs, we are very used to providing holistic care and trying to understand where the patient is coming to us from in lots of situations”.
Lord Rook (Lab)
I absolutely agree with that. The reason why the doctor is able to do that is because he gives consistency and continuity of care. He does not see patients on one occasion on one big issue, but is able to travel with them in a longitudinal relationship, and that gives him the ability to make those decisions.