Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Debate between David Smith and Tom Rutland(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.