Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

I am afraid to say that the whole debate about assisted dying is replete with scare stories. The hon. Gentleman says that they are descriptions of horrible events, but that is the situation that we are dealing with. We are here to try to pass legislation that is designed to avert horrible deaths. I am absolutely committed to that as well, but the evidence from abroad shows that people can also have a horrible death with assisted dying.

The hon. Gentleman points to Australia, but the evidence from Western Australia in particular is that over 4% of assisted deaths reported complications. He might be right that it is a better regime than that used in the United States, but even there complications occur. We do not know yet what the regime will be here, but I am alerting the Committee to the genuine danger of an assisted dying regime that induces very unpleasant results for patients.

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Member may be surprised to hear that I am inclined to support his amendment 362 and amendment 142 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, not because of, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, the scare stories or the examples that the hon. Member has been giving, but predominantly because of what the amendment says on the tin: that a person must be given a full explanation of the risks of complications and how a substance should be administered. As I have said a number of times in Committee—

[The Chair]

Order. Can I just check that this is an intervention?

[Jack Abbott]

It is an intervention, Ms McVey. My plea to the hon. Member is to focus on exactly what the amendment states. I appreciate all the stories and examples that he wishes to make, but it is important to reflect on the words of the amendment. As I said, I am minded to support it.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention.

Amendment 306, tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, addresses the question of what to do in the event of complications. I recognise that clause 9 states that that must be discussed, which I welcome. I think, though, that there is a significant absence that this amendment would address, which is what to do in the event of complications—specifically, which intervention would be appropriate.

Here we get into a very difficult area. I personally find it difficult to understand a way out of it, because it is a consequence of the sort of legislation that we are considering: what do we do when complications arise? Specifically, what do we do when the patient does not die and is still alive some hours later, possibly in distress? I have cited evidence about some of the complications that occur and the prevalence—for example, that 10% of such people in Oregon experience complications, including some who simply wake up again. We need to resolve this. On explaining possible side effects and complications, under the Bill as it stands none of the declarations that are signed by the doctors or the person requesting assistance confirm in writing that the criterion has been met for proper communication, so that is one concern.

My more substantial concern—I will finish with this—is that at the moment the doctors have to explain the complications, even though we do not know what the drugs are going to be yet, but they cannot discuss or decide with the patient what they would do in the event of complications. We know that the doctor must be present at the end or in the next room, but can they halt the process if complications arise—if the patient wakes up or is exhibiting signs of distress? That would be against the last known wishes of the patient who had said that they wanted to go ahead with the death. Should the doctor expedite the death knowing that that is what the patient theoretically wanted? Of course not, because that would be euthanasia; it would be the doctor actually killing the patient, which is illegal under the Bill. Do they stand by and do nothing at all, which goes against the doctor’s obligations to address symptoms and illness in a patient? If the patient is fitting or vomiting, the doctor would normally clear their airways. Should they do that, knowing that that might bring the patient back to life—that it might resuscitate them and stop the assisted death?

When we debate clause 18, we will discuss the process of the assistance that the doctor gives, but we are obliged, when we come to debate the Bill fully, to choose between three options. We could allow complications without any guidance, which is what the Bill does; that raises all sorts of challenges, and practical and ethical concerns, for doctors. We could stipulate that the patient should be revived, perhaps if a certain degree of distress is witnessed or if the patient is still alive after a certain period of time. Finally, we could allow euthanasia and say that, in that event, the doctor should be authorised to expedite the death. I do not know what the option should be. That is a question that a doctor would have to face in reality, in the bedroom of a patient who is exhibiting complications. I do not know what to do, but I do not think we should be proceeding with this Bill. Those who do believe in it have to answer this question: what does a doctor do if a patient is exhibiting distress and not dying—do they bring them back to life, expedite their death or do nothing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Yes, fortunately not. I am not convinced that the clause covers it. I will go back to that, but I have just read it because the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley raised it and I support his amendment, and somebody else raised it earlier.

I am not convinced that the complications are covered, because the clause does not set it out. In the usual sense, complications are side effects from medications. We have research and literature given to us and we understand the potential side effects. In this instance, we do not have a yardstick. I do not know whether the Minister can speak about the Government’s intentions—it would be helpful to have an impact assessment—and whether any research has been done in this area.

I am not convinced that clause 9(2)(c) actually covers this point, and I think the amendment would make the Bill much stronger. Ultimately, these drugs have not been tested—and for a very good reason, because they lead to death. We are in unchartered territory. When we are doing things that we have not done before, we cannot just pick and choose what we apply an analogy to. We need to be careful. We really need to consider the options to make this clause in particular much stronger.

[Jack Abbott]

I completely understand what my hon. Friend is saying about what may need to happen in respect of medical intervention, but I gently point out that the amendment would not cover that. It does not spell out in any way, shape or form what a medical intervention would look like. It says that there needs to be a random discussion, but it does not lay out any sense of the medical intervention. I do not see how the amendment will do what my hon. Friend is looking for.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As drafted, the Bill does not include effects. All it says is “complications”. It does not include the potential effects of the drugs that will be used. That is how the amendment would strengthen the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

No, I have not, because that is currently illegal—this Committee is about changing that—but I have sat with patients who have slowly died. It is not about whether we get an ambulance; we know we do not do that. We are allowing the patient to die, and if something happens that involves having to help them, we just do it. We do not need to specify that in the Bill: it is part of normal medical practice.

[Jack Abbott]

I will be brief, as I have already alluded to my support. I put on the record my support for amendment 93. There has not been a lot of debate on it because it is a fairly straightforward proposal.

There has been a lot of discussion. Members on both sides of the Committee have spoken in defence of the medical profession in respect of huge parts of the Bill, although they should not have to. We have of course seen occasional bad practice, as we do in all professions, but we should take a moment to reflect on the dedication, diligence, hard work and expertise of medical professionals in everything they do. This debate has on occasion almost presented this as a 50:50 choice between good doctors and bad doctors. I think we would all agree that although we want to put in the right safeguards, that is not the case at all.

I have made this point a number of times, but I do not want to accept amendments that spell out all the rules and regulations so that every doctor has to go to the nth degree all the time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has said eloquently on a number of occasions, it is already in their codes of conduct, working practice, training and everything else. However, on occasion we cannot be satisfied that something is a given. For that reason, particularly in respect of amendments 142, 362 and perhaps 305, if we say that

“the nature of the substance that might be provided to assist the person to end their own life (including how it will bring about death)”

must be discussed, it is not a huge leap to say that we should also spell out how it may be administered and the possible risks and complications that come with that. As I have said, I do not think it will create any unintended consequences. I do not think it puts the full rulebook on the face of the Bill. If we are stipulating how it will bring about the death, it is not a huge leap to also talk about the other side effects.

Cutting through some of the stories, and everything else we have heard this afternoon, we should be considering what the amendments seek to do—what they say on the tin, as it were. We should be asking doctors to have the conversations, although I am absolutely sure that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, those conversations will happen naturally anyway. I do not think there is anything harmful in the particular amendments, as we have discussed today.

Finally, on amendment 306, I understand the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire made. To be totally honest, I fail to see how the amendment satisfies the arguments they were trying to make, as powerful as those arguments are. It does not solve the issue they are looking to solve; I do not think it answers any of those questions. For that reason, I will not support amendment 306, but I am minded to support the other amendments in the group.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Amendment 93 relates to the discussion during the assessment that the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor are required to have with the person. The amendment would require that each of those doctors, during their assessment, must discuss the nature of the substance that “is to be provided” to the patient to end their life, rather than the substance that “might be provided”.

On amendment 305, clinicians in all areas are expected to work with patients to make decisions about their care and treatment as part of a shared decision-making process, including by discussing the risks, benefits and possible consequences of different options. The Committee may wish to note that the GMC’s “Good medical practice” states that when discussing a patient’s condition doctors must discuss with patients

“the potential benefits, risks of harm, uncertainties about, and likelihood of success for each option.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I absolutely agree that we have not thought this through enough, because that process has not been laid out. We really need to think about these potential eventualities.

When such cases happen, the public, including family members of the person who has died, will rightly demand answers, and so will the media. They will want to know who the panel members were and why they made the judgment they did. In such cases, who would investigate whether panel members had got it wrong? The commissioner who had appointed them? The commissioner, or any person, no matter how honest and how learned, would come back to that question with a very strong bias. The commissioner will mark their own homework. That is not a system that anyone can argue will provide proper safeguards.

Hon. Members might object that the voluntary assisted dying commissioner will be a very senior judge. According to the new clause, the commissioner

“must hold or have held office as a judge of—

the Supreme Court

the Court of Appeal, or

the High Court.”

I agree that only people of high intelligence and good standing become judges in those courts, but that does not mean that the very highest judges in the land do not sometimes make mistakes—sometimes very bad ones.

[Jack Abbott]

If we follow that argument, does that mean that we would support the new clauses? If we are moving from that single point of reference—a High Court judge and judicial review—it is surely much safer to move to what is proposed.

[Naz Shah]

The truth is—I said this in my previous speech, which I will not repeat, as instructed by you, Mrs Harris—that neither of the safeguards is strong enough. As it was, the Bill was not strong enough—that has been recognised and changes have been proposed—but neither is the idea of a commissioner.

There is another great problem raised by this set of changes to the Bill: they seem likely to increase the prospect of group-think when it comes to members of the panel. I would argue that that danger has been greatly increased by the move away from the High Court judge model that was originally in the Bill.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley introduced the Bill on Second Reading, she reassured the House that all assisted dying applications would have to be examined by a High Court judge. There were problems with that proposal, which is why she abandoned it. But there was one strength in making a High Court judge the arbiter: the Crown does not appoint High Court judges on the basis of whether they agree with assisted dying. We could all reasonably expect High Court judges to have a range of views on assisted dying; there is no reason I can think of that would mean that High Court judges, as a body, were biased in favour of assisted dying.

Something different will happen if a commissioner selects people to serve on these panels. Anyone serving on a panel will know that they will have to approve some applications for assisted death. We do not know how many applications for assisted death the Government expect to have. We also do not know how many social workers, psychiatrists and lawyers would be unwilling to approve any assisted death applications at all—I do not want to repeat myself, but I will be referring back to psychiatrists in another amendment. However, the number of psychiatrists who are strongly opposed to assisted death is very high, according the Royal College of Psychiatrists. We have also heard strong reservations expressed by the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers. Therefore, many professionals will choose not to sit on these panels, because they will not want to approve any cases. That means that some panel members are likely to end up dealing with dozens of cases per year. That poses the danger that some of the people who sit most on these panels will be advocates of assisted dying and will approve applications that other members may not have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott]

My hon. Friend is saying that there is no mechanism to remove the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. Actually, paragraph 4(5) of new schedule 1 says:

“The Secretary of State may by notice in writing remove a person from the office of Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner if satisfied that the person—

(a) has behaved in a way that is not compatible with their continuing in office”—

I think that addresses a lot of the concerns that she has been expressing—

“or

(b) is unfit, unable or unwilling to properly discharge their functions.”

There is a mechanism in the new schedule that would give the Secretary of State the power to remove the commissioner.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out, and I will look at it, but that was not my understanding.

There are multiple reasons to oppose new clause 21. With it, the Bill will reduce the impartiality that would have been provided by having a High Court judge rule on applications. It will increase the risk that a large number of decisions are taken by people who are enthusiastic proponents of assisted dying, which will reduce patient safety. It will also create a powerful new commissioner, who will appoint panel members and will then rule on whether they have made the right decision. That same commissioner will also be able to decide whether to overturn a panel’s decision to reject an assisted death application. That is a huge amount of power to put in one person’s hands and we should not do so. I urge hon. Members to reject the new clause.