Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

David Smith Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I commend those family members who are really powerful advocates for their children, parents and relatives in their engagement with the medical profession. We are at real danger of treating our clinicians as though they have no care for their patients—

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I am sure that all of us in this place respect and value our medical professionals. The simple point to make is that not everyone who goes before the medical profession has the same experience or confidence as some of us in this place.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is why it is so important that we have the rigorous training and safeguards that are a fundamental part of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Rutland]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Similarly, I cannot support amendment 102, which would require doctors to ensure that there were no “remediable suicide risk factors” before conducting a preliminary discussion with the patient. There is no clear legal or clinical definition of the term “remediable suicide risk factor”, and the Bill already includes multiple checks on mental capacity and mental illness, including by independent doctors and a specialist panel. The vagueness of this amendment risks wrecking this much-needed Bill.

I emailed Karen again yesterday to ask if I could refer to her in this speech. Her father-in-law had sadly died in the time that had passed between her initial email and our exchange yesterday. The Bill was not passed in time for him and he could not benefit from it. However, Karen hoped that his story could make some small contribution to changing the law. There do not need to be more people in Karen’s father-in-law’s position, or in Aimee’s grandmother’s position—they can have choice at the end of life, and our brilliant palliative care workforce, like Karen, can have choice on the kind of care they provide too.

[David Smith]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Tom Rutland]

I am afraid I must make progress.

I therefore hope that Members across the House will join me in supporting new clause 10, strengthening the Bill and reinforcing the fact that choice, for patients and practitioners, is at the heart of this legislation, and I hope they will oppose the amendments and new clauses that would wreck the Bill and put that choice at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The amendment is designed to stop our having a conversation about eligibility after this Bill. I want to see a Bill that stops the argument about a slippery slope and gives equitable access to people with all health conditions.

[David Smith]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Tom Gordon]

I will make a little progress.

We have gone further than any other jurisdiction in terms of safeguards. Why, then, if we are satisfied that our safeguards are robust, are we excluding those with neurodegenerative diseases—people who are terminally ill—on the basis of an arbitrary timeframe? We say that the Bill is about choice, but for someone who has already lost the ability to speak or move and who knows that they are on a rapid decline, what choice do we offer? Are we saying, “Wait until your prognosis hits six months, if a doctor can say so with confidence, and then hope that you will still have the cognitive ability to apply”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon]

I will make some progress.

The amendment is not about eroding the careful work that the Bill Committee has done to expand the rigorous safeguards already in the Bill; it is about ensuring that some people with the cruellest terminal conditions are not left out of the options that we are seeking to give others.

[David Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Gordon]

I am bringing my remarks to a close.

If we believe in dignity, let us ensure it is a dignity that includes everyone; if we believe in autonomy, let us not deny it to those who may lose their voice tomorrow; and if we believe in compassion, let it be a compassion that recognises the lived reality of all terminal illnesses and does not consign those with MND to the status quo.