Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Portrait Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Of course patients are welcome to refuse. I am slightly worried by the noble Lord’s phrase “I just want the injection”. The Bill is very clear: this is about self-administration. The doctor has to discuss with the patient how they are going to inject themselves with the lethal dose of drugs, whether they will do it with different syringes, if there is a mixture in the syringe and the complications of trying to do that. In asking the question, the noble Lord has just illustrated the nub of the problem.

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Portrait Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, on Friday 16 January 2026, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, defended the Bill’s provision for informed consent by arguing that the existing drafting already mandates comprehensive disclosure of information. He rejected Amendment 42 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which would require patients to be fully informed. He argued that was unnecessary because the specific obligations listed in the Bill already ensure that the patient receives all necessary information. However, these amendments identify further gaps and the weakness in the noble and learned Lord’s reliance on the Bill’s current drafting to guarantee informed consent. Evidence of complications, lack of data, prolonged death risks—all these show that there are downsides and pitfalls, rather than simply a peaceful exit.

Proponents, some of whom we have heard today, tell us about prolonged and painful deaths from illness, but they seem to close their minds to long and potentially painful deaths for those who walk the path suggested by noble Lords. There are two mentions of complications in the Bill, but nowhere is there an explicit requirement to explain and discuss the risks of complications, despite this forming a standard part of GMC and NICE guidance on informed consent. I wonder why that is.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 17th September 2020

(5 years, 4 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 130-III(Corrected) Third marshalled list for Report - (17 Sep 2020)
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Portrait The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I have received a request from the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, to ask a short question of elucidation.

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Portrait Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
- Hansard - -

To clarify, does the Minister believe that the term “exceptional adverse conditions” covers exceptional events such as extreme weather and serious diseases, which can cause major financial problems for farmers and food security? Does this Bill cover them?