Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Debate between Lord Blencathra and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Can I put it on record that I am not shaking my head? I think it was made clear that the power of attorney could not be used for this purpose.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
This has been another interesting debate. Possibly more important than the speeches that we all made at the beginning has been the last 40 minutes of real debate and interchange with the noble and learned Lord. I am left with the feeling that many colleagues in the Committee feel that there are a lot of unanswered questions and some uncertainties that we may need to return to.
However, I will follow the instructions of the Companion and the Government Whips, and I will not seek to respond in any detail to the many good points raised by noble Lords. I merely wish to remind the Committee that in the debate we heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey, Lady Lawlor, Lady Hollins, Lady Berridge, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady O’Loan. We also heard from the noble Lords, Lord Empey, Lord Harper, Lord McCrea, Lord Carlile of Berriew, Lord Wilson of Tredegar and Lord Mawson. What they all had in common was that they were deeply concerned that the definition of informed consent is not strong enough in the Bill and something more needs to be added.
I think that the noble and learned Lord relied on Clause 12(2)(c)(iv). The doctors have to discuss
“the nature of the substance that is to be provided”
and, in Clause 12(2)(d),
“discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications”.
However, there is nothing in there to say that they have to discuss the complications with them or the possible side effects. The noble and learned Lord may pick me up on this if I put the wrong words into his mouth, but I think that he said that explaining the nature of the substance could possibly—I think that he used that word—include discussing the possibility of complications and side effects.