Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Debate between Baroness O'Loan and Baroness Hayman(2 days, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I have found some of this discussion quite difficult to compute with my own very limited—non-doctor—experience of end-of-life care and relatives who have been dying. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, spoke as if there was a very binary division between assisted dying care and palliative care. Yet the cases that I have been involved with and seen very closely have been of people very definitely frail and at the end of their lives, and where the range of options they wanted to talk about were not simply pain relief. This whole time, no one has mentioned the right of people to exercise autonomy, to stop eating and starve themselves to death. Does the doctor not consider what happens in those circumstances and talk about options then? There is the option, of course, to turn off life support. There is the option—which my mother chose—to refuse any blood transfusions. Doctors talked her through how that would reduce her life expectancy.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 150, 156, 166 and 205, to which I have put my name, and in support of other amendments in the group.
As drafted, the Bill would permit a discussion about assisted dying with the patient before any requirement to discuss expert palliative care. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that it would be irresponsible not to allow this. In Australia and New Zealand, doctors are not permitted to initiate such discussions.
As drafted—