Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Harper Excerpts

Friday 13th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I have thought very carefully about the amendments we have gone through. I am sure they are all based on attempts to improve aspects of the process, such as the appointment of the panels, how the panels operate and the privacy issues. I should say that very considerable thought went into those issues before the Bill was drafted and as it went through the other place. I have given detailed reasons as to why I think the amendments we have debated would not really improve the position. For those reasons, after giving it considerable thought, I think that the Bill probably reached a better conclusion on, for example, the “must” and “may” issue that the noble Baroness raised and the need for special extra expertise. I have given it careful thought, but I do not think any of the amendments we have gone through would improve the Bill.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I want to pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, and the noble and learned Lord’s response to it. There are two aspects to what she said: whether the noble and learned Lord thought that any of the specific amendments might need bringing forward in a different form, and whether he thinks any of the issues raised, or concerns expressed, by any of the professional organisations that gave evidence raise any issues at all that he thinks need improving in the Bill, even if he thinks none of the amendments is acceptable. Does he think that all of those professional bodies’ concerns, and the evidence they gave about them, are misplaced?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Professional bodies have raised a whole range of concerns. That has informed the drafting of the Bill, and certain changes have been made in the light of a variety of those concerns. I certainly am not saying that we know better on everything than the royal colleges. Their thoughts since the Bill has been published have been taken into account.

--- Later in debate ---

This, frankly, puts into question what the point will be of Parliament discussing what is likely to be an NHS Bill that will be put forward in the upcoming King’s Speech, when, regardless of what Parliament decides in respect of the NHS Bill in the next Session, the mechanism at Clause 41(6) could subsequently be used to undo all of that anyway. Surely the right thing to do is to specify in this Bill what the mechanism is supposed to be. Then, when Parliament subsequently passes further primary legislation for the NHS, if it wants to make some adjustments at that point, it can do so in the full light of day.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I will come on to the exposition by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on this group of amendments shortly. I will also pick up on the important and perfectly fair point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, following on from the speech of my noble friend Lord Deben, about what end of the telescope you are looking at this from. She was right to challenge those of us who are focusing on the safeguards. It is also important that a Bill passed by Parliament is workable.

However, there is a reason, if I may just gently say to the noble Baroness, why we are focused in the way we are. It was put extremely well by Johann Lamont, who Members opposite will know was the leader of the Scottish Labour Party between 2011 and 2014. This is in the context of the debate on a different but similar piece of legislation currently going through the Scottish Parliament. She said:

“In my time as MSP I came to appreciate the challenge of understanding that something can be of benefit to some but the unintended consequences for others matter just as much. We should not just ask how it might help some but ask what if it means undesirable results for others”.


In effect, that is the nub of what we are trying to do here.

The Bill’s proposals, perfectly understandably, are focused on those who wish to seek assisted suicide. Those of us focusing on the safeguards in the Bill are worried about all the people who may be adversely affected: the vulnerable, disabled people and—before we fixed the gap in the Bill, which took a very long time to do—those with anorexia. Those are the two perspectives, both of which are valid, and that is what the debates in your Lordships’ House are trying to reconcile in this legislation.

The other very important issue—I am pleased to see my noble friend Lord Markham in his place, because he rightly often references this—is public opinion. On an issue such as this, it is more important that Members of Parliament, including Members of this House, do what they think is right. This is a very important moral question. We should do what we think is right, explain why we are doing what we are doing and then allow ourselves to be judged. People will draw conclusions about your Lordships’ House based on how we conduct ourselves and how we debate this legislation.

Since the proponents of the Bill are often happy to quote polling, it is worth just putting on the record some recent polling by Whitestone Insight for Care Not Killing. Whitestone Insight is a member of the British Polling Council. The key findings are very relevant to this group of amendments. When the public were asked whether they would support a law that enabled patient choice if it risked harm to vulnerable people, 42% said they would oppose such a law, and only 35% said they would support it. More than twice as many respondents strongly prioritised safety over choice, rather than choice over safety, which is not the position of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who frequently says to us that the important thing here is autonomy. That polling is important, because that is indeed the job this House is trying to do. It is about making sure that the legislation contains appropriate safeguards, so that it ends up being used only by those who have exercised a genuine wish to do so and not anybody else. That is incredibly important.

Having said that, I turn to the group of amendments put forward the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. I listened very carefully to what she said. She set out a very good, workable proposition on how to ensure that such decisions are made by a genuine multidisciplinary panel that is clearly separate from the people providing care. She set that out in a detailed way and explained it very well. Noble Lords are free to disagree with her, but I do not think that anybody could reasonably argue that this has not been done in a careful and thoughtful way, informed by her years of clinical experience in palliative care. So, it behoves all of us, whether we agree with her or not, to give her proposal due weight. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, responds, I hope he will take time to reflect on her proposal and, even if he does not agree with all of it, see if there are some things that are worthy of taking forward, from his own perspective, even if he cannot support all of them.

One of the important things the noble Baroness referred to—we have already discussed this and is not universally agreed with, but I strongly support it—is keeping the provision of assisted suicide separate from the provision of NHS care. That is very important for several reasons. Assisted suicide is not a healthcare treatment, so it is very important that it be kept separate from healthcare provision, partly for the reason set out very ably by my noble friend Lord Deben: if vulnerable people and other patients facing a terminal illness and needing palliative care think that, at some point, the people providing that care are going to try to end their life, encourage them to do so or put pressure on them to do so, the practical effect will be to put them off seeking palliative care at all.

My noble friend is right that many people fear, if they think there is going to be bad news, approaching doctors and healthcare professionals. Those involved in healthcare delivery know that many people seek medical treatment too late. Speaking as a man, men are particularly bad at going to see the doctor—far worse than women—leaving it until it is too late. That is something we should not be encouraging. We should be trying to make sure that people are comfortable in seeking support. It is important that, when they seek palliative care, they are clear about what they are getting and are not confused.

The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, are informed by his enormous experience in running the National Health Service. Clearly, in this country, there is an enormous amount of support for the principles of the NHS, whatever the level of performance is at any given time. It is also clear that the founding principles of the NHS would need to be altered to be able to deliver assisted suicide. I personally think that it would be best not to alter the founding principles of the NHS in order to do that. If you are going to do it, that should be an explicit decision of Parliament; it should not be a decision taken by Ministers.

If it is the wish, as I believe it is, of the sponsor of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to have this as an NHS service, it should be explicitly written into primary legislation, with the necessary consequential changes to what the NHS does. That should be a clear-eyed decision that Parliament takes, with all the consequences that flow from it—we have debated those, and I will not repeat them here—such as challenges about whether decisions will be taken because of funding and resource reasons, and about pushing people down one path rather than another. We have heard examples in previous debates where that has already happened, such as the Liverpool care pathway. For those reasons, I support the amendments set out so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. The points put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, are also very worthy of consideration.

Finally, I return to a point I made earlier in supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Berger. I accept that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, does not agree with everything we say, but I hope he accepts that all the royal colleges he referenced, having looked at the Bill, do not take a view on the principle, but do not support the legislation in its current form. So, even if the noble and learned Lord is not minded to support these measures, I hope he will at least listen to the concerns other people have expressed and take these as practical mechanisms to try to improve both the Bill and its workability. I hope he accepts them in that spirit.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

Is the noble Lord aware of a rather alarming story from Holland that is relevant to the separation of the two services that he mentioned? A gentleman witnessed the euthanasia of his mother. It was done by an anaesthetist, who came in and said to the lady, “Now, I’m just going to put a needle into your vein and inject this medicine, and you’ll go off into a wonderful sleep and have no further worries”. A month later, the gentleman was involved in a road traffic accident, and he had to have an emergency operation in that very hospital. He was waiting for the anaesthetist to come in, and he was horrified, because it was the same anaesthetist that had dispatched his mother. The anaesthetist used the same words: “I’m just going to put a needle into your vein and give you an injection and you’ll go off into a deep sleep with no worries”.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that information, but I am conscious that, because of his intervention, I am well over time. I am going to conclude my remarks there and allow the Committee to hear from the next speaker in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

As always, my noble friend raises an important point. I will go on to talk about the whole issue of substances, so if I do not address the points he raised, I will be happy to speak or write to him afterwards to make sure that he has had the clarification he requires.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I want to press the Minister a little for an answer, not necessarily this minute, on the point that my noble friend Lord Deben makes. It is perfectly proper for matters of genuine detail to be dealt with after Parliament has passed primary legislation; there are many pieces of legislation where we do that. However, there are quite a lot of issues which are not set out in the legislation—this is part of the concern that the Delegated Powers Committee set out—and they are not, by any stretch of the imagination, details. They are fundamentally important issues around, in this case, the substances. Can the Minister therefore take away the idea that if the Government cannot answer on some of these really big issues that are left not set out in the legislation, it will make it incredibly difficult, even for people who support the principle of the legislation, to support it in practice? It would be more helpful if, on these bigger issues, the Government could set out what their position is.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I just reinforce to the noble Lord that it would be completely wrong to pre-empt the decisions of Parliament—I am sure he is fully aware of that. I just want to give reassurance that, across all these issues, evidence would be considered in the usual way in considering the substances to be used should the Bill pass. I think I have been exceptionally clear on this, and we need to move forward.

Given the size of the group, I reaffirm that it would be impossible to address each amendment specifically, but the broad thematic workability concern is that the use of unclear and ambiguous language could result in unworkable duties and increased risk of legal challenge.

I turn to amendments tabled in relation to the regulation of approved substances and clinical trials. Many of these amendments are policy choices and are therefore a matter for the sponsor and for Parliament. However, noble Lords may wish to note that many of these amendments also introduce new concepts that would require significant work to ensure the policy intent is clearly understood and that they are coherent for the rest of the Bill. I draw noble Lords’ attention to a number of amendments where the Government have major workability concerns.

Amendments 701 and 713, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Hollins, relate to clinical trials for approved substances. First, these amendments could delay implementation of the Bill until a clinical trial or evidence-gathering study is completed, which could make implementation within the four-year timeframe difficult. Noble Lords may wish to be aware that these amendments could create workability concerns relating to the ethical and regulatory challenges for clinical trial processes for approved substances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I will divide my responses thematically under four headings.

I turn first to the new scheme proposed by noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in relation to how one deals with safeguarding here. The scheme would involve not having two doctors, then the panel, and then a doctor again at the point of administration; instead, the person who wants an assisted death would have to apply to a separate organisation, where a panel of up to seven people would consider their application. That panel would consider whether the safeguards are satisfied, as well as a number of other questions. If it were satisfied, it would give a provisional certificate of eligibility. The drugs could not then be delivered—I use that word without meaning “delivered to the person”—because an application for fast-track care and support would have to be made. If that application were granted, then—and only then—could the drugs be administered.

If there were doubt in the mind of the seven-person panel, the matter would be referred to the High Court. The provisions put forward by the noble Baroness do not specify what the role of the High Court is. The panel has to satisfy itself that a number of questions have been addressed, although those questions do not determine whether or not somebody is entitled to an assisted death. That is the proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. The current proposal in the Bill is that the co-ordinating doctor has to satisfy themselves of seven or eight strict matters, and then the panel considers the case. The co-ordinating doctor then, satisfied that the conditions have been met, provides assistance to the person who wants to die.

Underlying the distinction between the two proposals is the wish of the noble Baroness that the whole process of assisted dying be kept completely separate from the care that is being given to the patient. I am sorry that neither the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, nor the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is here, for they both highlighted that, under the scheme in the Bill, the people who will be going through the checks—the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor—will have to have opted in to specialist training. To some extent, they will be specialists themselves in assisted dying.

If one wants to give as much help as possible to the person who wants an assisted death, it must be better that the person providing the assistance can work within the team that is already providing care. It does not mean that they should be in any way pressing for a particular result. But, if we introduce assisted dying, and we want somebody to do the assessment and give the assistance, we are probably going to have ask somebody with some experience. We do not want to force the patient into an over-complex, entirely separate process.

I note that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, said that he wants the process kept separate from the NHS, but I am absolutely sure that he does not want the patient to embark on a very complex bureaucratic procedure. He has given reasons why he wants it kept separate from the NHS. As sponsor of the Bill, whether it is precisely separate or not is, for me, not the key question; the key question is whether, if a patient wants an assisted death, there is a practical and safe way of doing it that does not place an undue burden on them.

The proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is overengineered and much too separate from the care of the patient. It leaves out so many aspects. In particular, the drafting of her proposal does not indicate what her seven-person panel has to be satisfied of. The idea that seven people have to be satisfied is, in my respectful submission, much too onerous. Having two specialist doctors and a panel of three examining the case is, with respect, a much better proposal. I have thought very carefully about the noble Baroness’s proposal, but I have to say that the proposal in the Bill is so much better, so much more workable and so much more focused on the patient.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Yes, and I cannot imagine a situation, in particular because it is specifically required under the Bill, in which the co-ordinating doctor does not raise the question of what palliative care the patient has had and what is available. Indeed, the Bill requires him or her to do that. Whether the co-ordinating doctor should then provide that information to the voluntary assisted dying commissioner is a matter for the commissioner, as it is up to him or her to decide what information to collect. In principle, it seems a good thing, but the noble Lord has referred to vastly bigger issues that we might need to consider, not in the context of the assisted dying Bill but in relation to how proper information is available about the availability of palliative care. We are all supportive of that.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I wanted to ask the noble and learned Lord, on his comments about the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, about the role of the NHS. As noble Lords know, that this is to be provided by the NHS is not set out in the Bill. It is allowed for, and there are powers to amend the founding principle of the NHS to make it possible, but I had understood and Ministers indicated that, if this legislation were passed, this would be done by the NHS.

The noble and learned Lord said that this question is not of enormous importance to him; it is more about the process, which comes back to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, made about it being workable. However, I should like the noble and learned Lord just to set out his view about where assisted suicide should be provided, because the question about whether it will be provided by the NHS or not is really important. Whatever view the noble and learned Lord takes, the Committee deserves to know which of those two scenarios it is, before it makes a decision on whether it wants to support the Bill.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

When I said that I am really focused on how to provide a proper assisted death and that that is not a technical question about whether the NHS will provide it, I did not mean to say that it is not important for this issue to be resolved. If I did, I misspoke, but please do not read me as saying that. That is an issue on the way to the Bill providing a compassionate and workable way of providing an assisted death to those who want it.

As to the second part of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, about my view in relation to it, it is that it is ultimately for the Secretary of State for Health to decide how it is provided. The power is given to the Secretary of State to decide that in Clause 41, with the amendments that I have put down in relation to it. It gives him power to commission it himself or through a variety of other bodies. That might involve some body other than the NHS providing it. Ultimately, it is for the Secretary of State to decide how that is done. I think I have said enough on the scheme proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.

I will go on to substances. There is a range of amendments in relation to substances. We shall come back to substances in relation to Clauses 27 and 37. They are in this group because they relate in part to the scheme proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. She proposes designated pharmacies so that only particular pharmacies can do it. It is again—this is the wording of the Bill—for the Secretary of State to decide how substances are to be selected, how drugs and devices are to be approved, and then how they are to be dealt with. Subject to my amendments, which give more limitation to Clauses 27 and 37, I think the right principle in relation to that is that it is for the Secretary of State to decide how properly to regulate and choose the substances, and he or she is to do it only after taking proper advice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, briefly, Clause 6 standing part has been opposed by my noble friend Lord Moylan because of other aspects of amendments he has tabled. I very much support Clause 6 staying in the Bill: it was the one amendment on Report in the Commons where there was a significant majority in favour. In particular, I found it astonishing that anyone could even consider raising this with a child: it disappointed me that the sponsor of the Bill in the Commons voted against that amendment, but I am relieved it got through. It is also worth pointing out to the Committee that there is slightly different wording between Clause 6 and Clause 5(1), which my noble friend Lord Moylan’s Amendment 152 addresses by making sure “other health professional” is included, not just “medical practitioner”.

I have also seen multiple times what my noble friend Lady Fraser has just referred to. It is very irritating, especially when somebody is being taken home to die, if, against their wishes, DNR had been put in place by medical practitioners and then had to be rescinded. It is somewhat frustrating in that regard.

My noble friend Lord Goodman was succinct; I think that is partly the training of a journalist, or it might have been two years of quiet contemplation when he considered his vocation in an abbey on the Isle of Wight.

I want to briefly raise one point: the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred to the BMA. I am conscious that it is a trade union for doctors and does a lot of work on their behalf, but it is not a clinical body. However, the BMA pointed out its concerns that, without it, there would be uncertainty and legal risks for doctors. The BMA went into more detail on that in its evidence. In contrast, the Medical Defence Union’s written evidence to the Commons Select Committee—by the way, the MDU is an organisation that specialises in providing indemnity and other legal issues regarding doctors—came up with a different thing. It said:

“The MDU is concerned that the legislation, as … drafted … leaves doctors who do raise it at greater risk of a complaint”,


and then subsequent legal things.

So, as has also been pointed out, at what point would this ever be raised? I support more generally the approach and understand that, if a doctor is asked about this, of course that should be open to a response, unless they do not wish to do so, and part of Clause 5 covers that. But, overall, that initiation should not be in the hands of the medical practitioner, and we will come on later in further clauses to debate the recording of such discussions.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I shall focus my remarks on two points. One is that I thought the speech of my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest was very powerful. I strongly support what she said about proper safeguards for people with learning disabilities and she has an amendment which deals with that. But I really want to test the thinking here, because there is a view, and this is where I settled, on whether medical professionals should be able to raise things proactively.

What I was thinking through—I would be interested in what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, thinks—is that the Bill is obviously about, first, legalising assistance to help someone take their own life, but it is also about putting a process in place, and those are two separate things. I was also thinking about the thing that is currently lawful, which is that someone is able to take their own life if they do not require assistance. I do not know whether it is just me but, if you were diagnosed with a terminal illness and suggested to a medical practitioner that you were thinking of taking your own life if the Bill were not in force, as far as I understand it—there are many in this House who can correct me—the medical practitioner has a duty under various existing suicide prevention strategies to take steps to try to prevent you taking your own life. They are absolutely not supposed to help you; they are supposed to try to stop you, up to and including using provisions in the Mental Health Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I completely understand what the noble Baroness is saying. Suppose you cannot find a doctor with that information about you—the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, is not talking about the sorts of cases that many noble Lords were talking about, where, by raising it, you are leading to a situation where somebody might be persuaded when they otherwise would not—the answer would be that you would have to consent to all your records being given to a doctor with whom you could have the conversation.

Noble Lords should remember that Clause 5(6) says:

“A registered medical practitioner who is unwilling or unable to conduct the preliminary discussion mentioned under subsection (3) is not required to refer the person to another medical practitioner but must ensure that the person is directed to where they can obtain information and have the preliminary discussion”.


So you can get assistance from a doctor who is not willing to have the discussion. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that, in order to have the discussion, the doctor has to have all the information I referred to. If no doctor in possession of that is willing then you will have to consent to it being given to somebody else—and a patient can consent to their records being given to another doctor.

I turn to the position for those with a disability and, in particular, will deal with the point so powerfully raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton. My Amendment 548A would require that anybody providing a relevant activity under the Bill—new subsection (8) defines “relevant activity” as including “conducting a preliminary discussion”—must not carry out that relevant activity unless the person seeking assistance has an “independent advocate”.

The amendment says that

“‘qualifying person’ means … a person with a mental disorder (as defined by section 1(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983) … a person who (in the absence of support) would experience substantial difficulty in doing one or more of the following … understanding relevant information … retaining that information … using or weighing that information as part of the process of making relevant decisions, or … communicating their views, wishes or feelings”.

Where there is to be a preliminary discussion, the person has to be accompanied by an independent advocate, unless—this is in new subsection (3) to be inserted by the amendment—the person

“seeking assistance informs the relevant person that they do not want an independent advocate, or … where the relevant activity is conducting a preliminary discussion, the person seeking assistance informs the relevant person that they are content for the preliminary discussion to be conducted without them having an independent advocate”.

What the sponsor of the Bill is aiming at there is as follows. If there is any question about one’s ability to process information—what the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, said about the suggestibility of people with Down syndrome is incredibly resonant—I would envisage the position to be that you have to have an independent advocate but you may not need to have one if it is known to the doctor, or if it becomes apparent, that a family member would be adequate. That would be a reason for not having an independent advocate. But, if there is no family member—for example, if the person suffering from a disability has no parents, siblings or whatever—there has to be an independent advocate.

It may be that the area I should focus on in the amendment on independent advocates is this: you can say no to the need for an independent advocate, maybe because you have nobody else, but is that too risky? I need to consider that, given the point on suggestibility raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, and Mr Ross of the Down syndrome advisory policy group, whom I have discussed that with.

The points made about people with a learning disability are, I hope, addressed in my amendments on an independent advocate. Ultimately, where there may be no family, the independent advocate has to be the rock-bottom protection.

I move on from that to children. I remind noble Lords that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, made clear, Clause 6 says:

“No registered medical practitioner or other health professional shall raise the subject of the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act with a person under the age of 18”.


It cannot be raised, and I completely stand by that. What happens if it or something like it is raised by a person who is under 18? I found what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, to be resonant and insightful. You have to deal with it in a sensible way. You cannot just say, “I’m afraid I can’t talk about that. That’s the end of it”. You have to treat the person with a degree of maturity.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, supported Amendment 211, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rook, which says:

“If a person under the age of 18 raises the subject of the provision of assistance under this Act, the medical practitioner must refuse to discuss the subject and shall inform the person that such assistance is not available to individuals under the age of 18”.


I am sure that the medical practitioner should say that it is not available to persons under the age of 18, but I am not sure that it would be wise for the Bill to prescribe that no further discussion is appropriate—particularly for 17 year-olds, who are often quite perceptive. The idea that you cannot have any discussion about this is just not practical or sensible and it would drive people to other sources, which may be more dangerous.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I will press the noble and learned Lord on that point. The ability for medical professionals to discuss this with patients is prescribed in the first part of Clause 5, but only

“in accordance with this Act”.

If you were a medical professional and a child raised this with you, and you started discussing it, would you not be obliged, under your legal and professional suicide prevention duties to that child, to take steps to protect them? Under the Bill, they would not be eligible to have an assisted suicide. I do not understand this—and the noble and learned Lord has not answered my question about what happens with adults—but if a child goes to a medical professional and starts suggesting that they want to end their life, that medical professional is under a clear duty to take steps to protect the life of that child and even to take steps to force that to be the case. Unless I am missing something, nothing in the Bill will change the legal and professional duties on that medical professional.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right. The point I was making was that, if it is raised, it is not sensible to just close down the discussion altogether. There has to be an informed discussion, which is completely consistent with the duties that the noble Lord referred to. The idea that there cannot be any discussion about it, which is what I think the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rook, says, is, in my submission, neither practical nor wise. It is for the doctor to decide how to deal with it, of course in the context that the noble Lord mentioned.

Finally, if the Bill passes, Parliament will have decided that the option of an assisted death for those who are terminally ill is an appropriate option. It may well have come to that conclusion because it thinks that it is a compassionate option to give people, as has occurred in so many other countries in the world. Once Parliament has said that that is the position, those people who are in a position to access assisted dying should be given appropriate assistance to do so. That is why, in my view, it is perfectly acceptable for it to be discussed by doctors as an option for people who are terminally ill, because they will look to those who are caring for them for assistance to determine how their life ends. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, was saying this, but I do not believe that adopting that option is morally abhorrent.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I will press the noble and learned Lord because I genuinely want to understand what is going to happen. This is quite a big deal for the health service and other professionals in this area. When, under the Suicide Act, which the Bill amends, somebody trying to take their own life stopped being a criminal offence, we did not suddenly say that we thought that was an acceptable thing for them to do; we recognised that making it a criminal offence did not make a lot of sense. Therefore, just because we make assisted suicide lawful—getting assistance to take your own life—in itself that does not change the suicide prevention duties.

I want to understand, if the Bill were to become law, what steps the Government would have to take on the legal duties that medical professionals have under the suicide prevention duty and their professional duties; otherwise, I do not think we are being very consistent here. I do not want medical professionals, who we are asking to do this work, to be conflicted or to think they are at risk. Organisations such as the Medical Defence Union think we are in great danger of putting those medical professionals in that invidious position, and the noble and learned Lord has not really answered my question satisfactorily—or certainly not to my satisfaction.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The point of this part of the Bill is that it is a legitimate option. If the noble Lord is saying that because we have suicide prevention policies in other areas, we should still treat it as something that we should not in any way encourage or help people to access if that is what they want, that is wrong. The true position is that, once it becomes an option, subject to the safeguards being gone through, it is something that people should know about and make their own judgment about.