Lord Bishop of Newcastle
Main Page: Lord Bishop of Newcastle (Bishops - Bishops)
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I support and have added my name to Amendment 771ZA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, which would prevent the assisted dying service being part of the NHS. I agree with the points made by my noble friend Lord Stevens.
Integration into mainstream healthcare appears to normalise the practice and lower barriers to the use of assisted dying. International evidence is instructive—where it is embedded within publicly funded healthcare systems, such as in Canada and the Netherlands, uptake rises steadily over time and eligibility criteria broaden. As we know, in some jurisdictions it is available to minors, people with non-terminal conditions, psychiatric diagnoses, and even people with learning disabilities and autism, as my own published research on the Netherlands has shown.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Stevens that assisted dying is not a treatment. That is a further reason why it should never become part of the National Health Service. The substances proposed to be used neither treat nor prevent disease; they fall outside the legal definition of a medicinal product. The drug regimens proposed are unlicensed, have not undergone appropriate clinical trials and lack international consensus. The drugs that have been used more widely and successfully to provide the much-lauded pain-free and quick death, such as in Switzerland, are not even available or licensed for human use in the United Kingdom.
My noble friend Lord Birt seems to seek to introduce similar criteria as are used in Switzerland, and not just for terminal illness—he spoke about suffering, pain, and conditions that are not eligible under the Bill. In Switzerland, non-profit organisations such as Dignitas operate within that narrow but deliberate legal space created by Article 115 of the Swiss Penal Code, which states that assisted suicide is punishable only when carried out for selfish motives. That means that if it is provided purely out of compassion, with no personal gain, it is not a criminal offence, enabling Dignitas and other similar non-profit organisations to function lawfully so long as they can demonstrate altruistic intent and ensure that the individual is acting autonomously.
Interestingly, Article 115 of the Swiss Penal Code, contained only one clause—I think just one sentence—when it became law in 1942. One wonders whether the smoke and mirrors of the 59 clauses in the Bill and the various proposed new clauses from my noble friend Lord Birt disguise a similar intent. The potential changes and development of the proposals before us today are concerning. Indeed, if something as straightforward as is provided in Switzerland is intended, I do not understand why it was not proposed in the first place. We do not want this in the National Health Service.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, in his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, cited Australia. I am sure that he is aware that no Australian jurisdiction is recognised as one of the 10 comparable jurisdictions in the Bill’s eligibility criteria and the Government’s impact assessment. The most comparable are New Zealand and the United States. This discussion was resolved in our Select Committee by receiving evidence from New Zealand. We need to be consistent and mindful of the Government’s impact assessment and ensure that our comments align with it.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, with his vast experience, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, with hers.
My point is a simple one, which, as a lawyer, has been troubling me for a long time: conflict of interest. There is an internal conflict of interest here within the health service. Are you going to spend the money on this or on palliative care? Will it affect decision-making by medical practitioners? I have talked to a number of them—one of them is a member of my family; I will not embarrass them by saying more—and know that it is a matter of real concern, because this is not treatment, but something quite different.
We do not have to have non-medical things such as, as we have heard, Department for Work and Pensions assessments done under the NHS label. That is contrary to everything the NHS stands for. There would be a conflict of interest within any trust that funds and administers this as to where the money goes. Will it be given more money, specifically? Will it be limited?
The obvious overseeing Secretary of State for this is the Secretary of State for Justice, because you are going to be dealing with the administration of life and death, not simply trying to cure people and save them from death. It is quite different. You are saying, “You can die, and we are satisfied that there are no bad people around you who are encouraging you to opt for this course”. Then there will be the selection and management of the panels, which will be performing a quasi-judicial function, like other assessment panels.
The obvious place for this, which would remove, or at least limit and reduce, the risks within the health service, would be a separate, specific budget given to the Ministry of Justice. We would then know what is being spent. Otherwise, the XYZ trust will say, “Gosh, what do we take this from?” I will not give emotive examples, but that is what will happen in practice, so we need to know that this is a specific service and that the country has said it will have hundreds of millions of pounds a year to run it, but that it will be on top of and ancillary to anything the ordinary health service provides to people who actually want to live, or at least live in comfort.