Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting)

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Green]

Q I have a follow-up question. The Bill introduces a monitoring and review process, including an annual report by the chief medical officer. Do you have any reflections on whether that needs strengthening?

Dr Clarke: Yes, I think that in the spirit of transparency and making this as safe as possible, it needs to be significantly strengthened. I would suggest that there need to be more safeguards in place. For example, if anyone in a hospital—whether staff, patient or family member—has concerns around a particular case, there should be mechanisms for those to be raised in a proactive way. Just as we have guardians of safe working and freedom to speak up guardians in hospitals, those opportunities to assess and appraise the safety in real time once a Bill is in place—I just do not think they are robust enough at all. The more we can have of that, the more that will allay people’s fears.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

Q My question is to Dr Ahmedzai. In the paper you produced you talked about specific recommendations regarding the training and experience of the doctors involved in the process. You suggested five years, for instance, and some other experience. Have you got examples elsewhere in the world where such a scheme has been implemented? Do you believe that we have enough trained doctors in the United Kingdom who have that level of experience and would therefore be taking part in this part of the process?

Dr Ahmedzai: You have caught me on the hop, because I cannot quote the level of training that doctors have received elsewhere, except for examples in the Netherlands, where there are additional doctors who are, through their medical association, trained specifically in assisted dying. I cannot tell you the number of years’ experience that doctors have in other countries. I felt that it was self-evident that you would want doctors who are experienced—three years, five years or whatever post qualification—and who have seen real life. It is up to the medical associations to stipulate how much experience, but I would not like the idea of a doctor immediately, having got their certificate of training, going off and making these kinds of decisions. That is why I suggested that ballpark figure.

[Daniel Francis]

Q Just to clarify, is there nowhere else in the UK where we have that? I am just trying to understand, because we would need to go away and do a piece of work on whether there are enough doctors with that level of experience if we were to take on that kind of recommendation. Is there nowhere else in the medical profession in the UK where we insist on that level of experience?

Dr Ahmedzai: Probably not, but this is a very, very special situation, and it may be, once it has become embedded in the health service, that that stipulation could move back.

I am so glad that Dr Clarke keeps coming back to training. One thing that is absolutely needed if this Bill goes forward is to take the topic of assisted dying out of being an optional training—where people might sign up for a course—to become mandatory. In the NHS, we do mandatory training for all sorts of things, including washing hands, lifting and basic life support. There should be basic dying support mandatory training as well. Why do we not have that? That kind of provision would become part of training doctors up to become good at those conversations that Dr Clarke is obviously involved in teaching, and in ensuring that they keep up to date with how the law is changing too. I would look to the royal colleges and the GMC to lead on those aspects.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Not just at the moment. We will move to Daniel Francis.

[Daniel Francis]

Q Alex, in paragraph 8 of your written evidence you touch on clauses 9, 15 and 18 of the Bill and the potential complications that could arise when the substance is taken. Could you expand on the concerns you have about that?

Alex Ruck Keene: I should make it absolutely clear that all I am trying to do is make sure that whatever law is passed is a good law and has as few inadvertent consequences as possible. My concern here arises out of the fact that understandably the proponents of the Bill want to make it very, very clear that this is about people carrying out a final act, and no doctor is allowed to do something that involves going beyond that. At the same time we have a situation where doctors—I am using the word “doctor” slightly loosely, but for present purposes that is what we are talking about—have to be present and have to remain with the person. We know that there will be some people for whom there are complications.

My concern is to make sure that there has been sufficient consideration given to what exactly a doctor is meant to do at that point, because it seems to me that it ends up putting the person who is undergoing those complications in a horrible position. It is also—I am perfectly happy to use this phrase—putting the doctor in a position of extraordinary moral distress. Are they at that point supposed to try and rely on the doctrine of double effect and say, “All I am trying to do is treat the complication, not bring about your death,” but the Bill is saying, “No, you are not allowed to do that”? I understand entirely why the intention is to say that the doctor must always be hands off, as it were, but you need to super clear that you are going to put some people in some very, very difficult positions, and Parliament needs to be clear-eyed about that.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Q I want to stick with clause 18, because as it stands there can be some assistance by the clinician but there cannot be total delivery or administration by the clinician. You could end up with a scenario where, for instance, you have somebody who is tetraplegic and then gets a terminal diagnosis, has capacity to make the decision and wants to end their life, but they do not have the physical means of doing so. Do you think that is open for challenge on grounds of discrimination?

Sir Max Hill: I would not look at it on grounds of discrimination. What I would do is put that clause alongside what are generally referred to as the slippery slope arguments in other jurisdictions. In other jurisdictions—Canada might be one and some of the US states might be another—the provision of life-ending medication is expressed in a form of treatment by a doctor. This is not that. We are clear when reading clause 18 that it is not a permission to administer; in fact, it is a prohibition on administration. It is making available in certain tightly defined circumstances and then standing by—not necessarily in the same room, as stated in subsection (10)—while the self-administered medication takes effect.

Having said that, I am absolutely clear that there is only so far a Bill or Act of Parliament can go as primary legislation. There is then further distance that must be covered by the provision of practical and professional rules, under the auspices of the national health service here, to indicate precisely the circumstances in which this will physically happen. I do not see that as discriminatory; we are dealing with a tight category of defined individuals to whom this applies and it does not apply to anybody outside that, as we have just discussed. But it is not prone to the slippery slope arguments of something that is generally to be made available in the course of treatment. In fact, the Bill has been couched in a very different way.