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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

The problem with the amendment, which has been mentioned before—I will not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley and say that it would essentially nullify the Bill—is that it is entirely subjective. It is not guidance or a clear point of reference; it is entirely subjective to each individual doctor.

[Danny Kruger]

I am afraid that the English language is rather subjective. The service would rely on guidance or case law that had been built up, although one hopes that there would not have to be court cases in respect of it. The interpretation of the language of the Bill would be the duty of clinicians and, ultimately, NHS trusts and their lawyers.

[Jack Abbott]

A lot of the conversations we have had in Committee have been about eliminating the lottery that exists in our healthcare system. What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting will be exactly that: a lottery according to each individual clinician and doctor.

[Danny Kruger]

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot give doctors and clinicians autonomy, which the Committee has repeatedly seen as a ground to reject all sorts of obligations that I and others have proposed to ensure that doctors do the job in a specific way, and then suggest the opposite in this instance. I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says, and he may be right that that is inappropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I rise briefly to oppose all four amendments, which seem to completely ignore the reality of what it is like to receive a terminal diagnosis and then die. In truth, from the moment someone is told that they have some horrible disease that is likely to kill them, their entire life becomes a contemplation or reflection on their mortality, frankly, and on the options that might be available to them. Although we have sought to strike a balance in the Bill by having periods of reflection between the various steps, we have to reflect on the fact that people will be thinking about these things all the time anyway. Although we might be going through the motions and hoping that they seek assistance and advice during that period, I guarantee that it will already be in the forefront of their minds.

These amendments—like so many from the hon. Lady from the beautiful city of York, the hon. Member for York Central—operate on the basis that people will show up at six months, enter the process at six months, do their three weeks of contemplation and then immediately take their lives, which is simply unrealistic and hardly ever going to happen. The vast majority of people will have been wrestling with their disease for months and often years before they get to the six-month period. If they are diagnosed with less than six months to go, which happens quite frequently, as we discussed in relation to pancreatic cancer yesterday, they will be immediately thinking not just about what their death will be like, but about the things they have to get done in that period—spending time with their family, the people they want to say goodbye to, the arrangements they want to make and the things they want to complete before they leave us. Imposing on people these arbitrary periods of reflection—the ones in the Bill are arbitrary, too—has to be balanced against the notion that these people have other things to do, and a hell of a lot more to think about than the bureaucracy we are trying to put in place.

The other thing to bear in mind, which the amendments do not take account of, is that disease progression is very rarely linear. I am sure the medics will tell us that there is often a period where a person thinks they are going to be okay, and then suddenly they fall off a cliff towards the end. Anybody who has been close to somebody with advanced cancer will know that they can be perfectly well and functioning until the last couple of weeks, or even days, before they suddenly decline and die. We need to design a system that satisfies the requirement for reflection, but also lets these people do what they need to do.

Although the hon. Member for Bradford West says that the amendments do not extend the amount of reflection time by that much, what in total they double it. It goes from 21 days to 42 days, which is a very significant proportion of the time that those people will have left to themselves—to sit, think, wait and go through the bureaucratic process. What most people will want to do is go through the process and secure permission, then take their time and think about what they want to do. They want to get on with their lives and to enjoy what is left because they lose the fear of what their ultimate end is going to be. Then, some weeks or months later, they can make the decision, if they wish to, to take their own lives, and we know that about a third do not because they are in palliative care.

[Jack Abbott]

On the point about almost doubling the time of the so-called reflection period, I think we have been very fixated on the Committee, and rightly so, on the six-month limit for the terminal diagnosis, but we recognise that for many people it will be much less than that. A reflection period of two months for someone with a terminal diagnosis of three months is a critical problem.

[Kit Malthouse]

I completely agree. We have to strike a balance here. The point I am making is that, within an envelope of six months, 42 days is far too long, so I am afraid that I flatly oppose the amendments. They are based on a fundamental misunderstanding: the idea that people will just show up at six months, that their disease progression will be linear, and that they will then take the decision immediately, the moment they finish the reflection period. I can tell hon. Members that the entire six months, from the moment someone gets a six-month diagnosis, will be a reflection period.

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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sojan Joseph]

I would be happy to see the Bill make a strong case that the people who will take part in this process have training before they do so.

My larger issue is around the independent doctors. Again, I will use some examples of how the Mental Health Act 1983 has been carried out in its current format. Those cases always use a section 12-approved doctor, who is a second doctor and they may not have had any kind of contact with the patients. We may or may not end up in that sort of similar situation. That is the point I was making earlier.

As the Royal College of Psychiatrists mentioned, capacity can change and decisions are opinions with margins of error. I mentioned my experience working in mental health wards earlier, and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire talked about the capacity assessments carried out when patients are standing by or threatening to jump off a bridge. I am not comparing these situations or saying that they are similar, but we have to make decisions based on capacity. In my experience of discharging people from hospital in a mental health unit, when somebody is threatening, “I’m going to kill myself if you discharge me”, the multi-disciplinary team—the doctors and the nurses—have to make a decision on whether to discharge the patient based on their capacity at that time.

Capacity is assessed based on whether someone is able to understand information—can they retain, use and weigh information, and can they communicate their decision? We cannot compare that with the situation of somebody asking for assisted dying. I want to make it clear that the capacity assessment is the key. I would love to support this amendment. As I said earlier, this issue was one reason I voted against the Bill on Second Reading, but passing this amendment might change my position and I would love to support it.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I will speak specifically to amendment 50. I fully appreciate and accept the points made on a number of occasions during this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud—that many proposed changes either already feature in the Bill or are the current course of practice for doctors and other medical professionals. As I have said previously, I am not generally in the business of supporting amendments that, in my view, overcomplicate issues, are ambiguous and could lead to other consequences or are simply repetitious, but I do not think that amendment 50 would do those things.

Some proposed amendments are featured in the Bill, either directly or implicitly, but I do not see how amendment 50 would overcomplicate or lead to ambiguity. It is a quite direct and, dare I say, common-sense ask that we should all support. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire on proposed new subsection (2)(f) of clause 3, as inserted by amendment 50, though I confess I did not read it in the same way that he did. I read it as saying that anyone looking to go down this route should be made aware of the legal consequences. That is a sensible suggestion.

I do not expect a doctor would be going into people’s bank accounts or deeply understanding their legal affairs, but due consideration, advice and information should be imparted to the person who is applying. That is how I read it; I did not think it would be a hugely intrusive, in-depth study into a person’s personal finances.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that it could be a problem and an area of concern if we have two Members who have both read an amendment but have different interpretations of it?

[Jack Abbott]

Potentially. There are certain words and clauses on which everyone will come to very different conclusions. This has been the case throughout the entire Committee process, which is approaching its 16th sitting now. It has already been said that this provision could be tightened up, and I welcome the Ministers’ input in helping us to understand their position on aspects like this.

In my view, there is nothing in amendment 50 that specifically says, “This would be an intrusive look at someone’s personal finances.” The measure—on the advice that would have to be given—is a proportionate one. Yes, it could be reasonably argued that proposed new subsection (2)(c) to clause 3, as set out in amendment 50, has already been covered under things that we have discussed extensively, such as coercive control and pressure. Equally, I do not think that any of the language in the amendment would necessarily overrule any other issues or make them more ambiguous. From that point of view, I will be supporting the amendment. I do not think there is anything in it that would override or lead to complications with any other part of the Bill, but it does put in black and white on the face of the Bill some of the very basic processes that should be happening.

I appreciate that many of the points in amendment 50 are already happening or feature directly or implicitly in the Bill. However, I do not think there is any harm in the amendment; in fact, given the nature of what we are talking about and the fact that this legislation is unprecedented in this country, we should be very clear and direct. I do not think it will lead to confusion for our medical profession. These are straightforward and common-sense asks. On that basis, I will be supporting this amendment.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I was not intending to, but I will speak very briefly to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich. I agree that what is set out in amendment 50 is entirely sensible and I support such provisions. However, I will not vote for it, and I want to explain why.

We will go down a very difficult route if we set out the regulation in primary legislation for every individual area of medical practice in this country. We do not have an equivalent version for how doctors should talk to their cancer patient and what information they should provide. We do not have the equivalent in various other sensitive acts, such as the Abortion Act 1967, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 and so on. The reason is that we rely, as set out in statute, on regulation through the General Medical Council.

I want to read into the record some of the existing General Medical Council guidance for doctors on giving information to patients. Of course, this covers any doctor-patient interaction, and it would apply in this case as well:

“The information you give patients

10. You must give patients the information they want or need to make a decision.

This will usually include:

a. diagnosis and prognosis

b. uncertainties about the diagnosis or prognosis, including options for further investigation…

c. options for treating or managing the condition, including the option to take no action

d. the nature of each option, what would be involved, and the desired outcome

e. the potential benefits, risks of harm, uncertainties about and likelihood of success for each option, including the option to take no action.”

That is already set out by the General Medical Council.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott]

I completely hear everything my hon. Friend is saying, but we also to have accept that this is not like any other legislation. This is arguably one of the most seismic societal changes that we, as parliamentarians, are going to be passing. In my view, amendment 50 would not set a precedent that, for all future health legislation, we have to set out the clear procedures—

[The Chair]

Ahem.

[Jack Abbott]

I apologise for the length of this intervention, Mrs Harris. The central point is that we have to recognise that this is an incredibly important piece of legislation and there is nothing wrong with being absolutely clear and stating the procedures that would have to be undertaken to pursue this.

[The Chair]

I do not need apologies; I need brevity. I do not want to repeat myself again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott]

My hon. Friend makes the case that some people will not be given the full range of medical options available to them. Presumably, though, the amendment would limit that even further, because they will not be able to understand assisted dying fully unless they have raised it themselves. We are actually restricting the full range of medical options for those people.

[Naz Shah]

That is not what I am trying to get to here. Maybe there is some confusion on my part; I will make it clear as I carry on. The issue is that people already know that assisted death is an option in the wider context, just like when we talk about abortion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe pointed out earlier. I am supporting amendment 8 because it further safeguards people, as the practitioner cannot be the one to raise it. Perhaps if I continue with my speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich may find his answer. We can come back to it if necessary.

As I was saying, many people will be poorly informed on medical matters and reluctant to ask questions of doctors. Many will have capacity under the Mental Capacity Act but, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, they will have greater capacity to take some decisions than others. For all those people, there is a danger that if a doctor raises this subject first, they will hear it not as a neutral comment, but as a suggestion. Not all of them will hear it as such, but some will.

Although not all expert witnesses who appeared before us endorsed that view, it is a concern that some raised. Others took a different view, such as the British Medical Association, which wants doctors to be able to raise assisted dying. It gave several reasons in its written evidence:

“Doctors should be able to talk to patients about all reasonable and legally available options…Doctors should be trusted to use their professional judgement to decide when and if a discussion about assisted dying would be appropriate, taking their cue from the patient as they do on all other issues…A prohibition would also create uncertainty and legal risks for doctors, which may inhibit effective doctor/patient communication and understanding.”

We cannot simply adopt or reject the amendment because of what the experts say. Instead, we must go through the arguments that the different experts made and consider which we find most convincing. It is our responsibility as legislators to make this decision. Personally, I found the voices raising concerns to be deeply convincing.

As with all this Committee’s inquiries, we must look at everything from the angle of safeguarding those who are vulnerable across society. For example, if someone is isolated, with very few close relatives or friends, and if they feel that they cannot challenge what the doctors say to them, they will be deeply trusting of or even dependent on their own doctor. That is not to say that we should be cynical about doctors, who are giving vital support to our most vulnerable citizens; it is to say that we have to look at the reality.

There is one kind of relationship between a confident and socially well-supported person and their doctor. For some who may lack confidence and have little or no social support, that relationship may well be very different. That point was repeatedly stressed by senior doctors who gave evidence to the Committee. We heard from witnesses that they do not think that this is a hypothetical danger.

Let me remind hon. Members of some of the expert witnesses who told us about the real risks posed. Dr Rachel Clarke, a palliative medicine doctor at Oxford, said:

“If, for instance, you say to a vulnerable patient who has just been told they have a diagnosis of terminal cancer, ‘Have you thought about assisted dying?’, I would suggest that stating it broadly like that is a form of pressure and that you are potentially unintentionally coercing that patient. The very act of raising assisted dying in that way will make that vulnerable patient think, ‘God, is this doctor telling me that my life is not worth living any more?’ Autonomy is much more subtle and complicated than we assume from outside.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 75, Q93.]

[Jack Abbott]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, but I would gently point out, as has been said already this afternoon, that the conversations between doctor and patient will not be that straightforward. A range of options will be presented to the patients. I do not think it would be a case of “Here is the option of assisted dying. This is your only option.” There will be a huge range of options on the table, as is right and proper.

[Naz Shah]

It is the right and proper thing to do to give options, but we are talking about vulnerability. We have had the debate a few times now about people with vulnerability, and we heard during evidence sessions about coercion, capacity and all the issues relating to amendment 8 in respect of those with vulnerabilities being presented the option of assisted death. When I speak to my next amendment, I will cover some of this, because the Bill does not necessarily leave us with confidence that vulnerable people will be safeguarded. That is what amendment 8 also seeks to address.

Dr Rachel Clarke is a doctor who spends every working day with people who need palliative care. Her evidence cannot be laid aside. Dr Jamilla Hussain, who also gave evidence, is in favour of assisted dying in principle, but she raised significant concerns about the Bill as drafted, including on this issue. Dr Hussain said that her patients in Bradford have reduced access to palliative care, partly because they fear that doctors might try to end their life. She talked about how she worked with

“not only ethnically diverse communities, but those who are socially disadvantaged…I have taken this Bill to them and they have made it really clear—this is not just one community, but several, and I am not speaking on my behalf, but on theirs—that they are really fearful because this is what happened to them in covid. It affected everyone, but it affected some communities disproportionately because our services are not equitable. That could profoundly affect their healthcare, and not only in terms of end-of-life care. They are saying, ‘We will not even come to hospital ourselves, because we are worried that this would happen.’ This is not an academic or theoretical risk. We saw it happen in covid in Bradford. There were communities so worried that their loved ones were dying in hospital that they stayed at home and died earlier.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 190, Q247.]

Perhaps in some cases they died a death that could have been preventable. Dr Hussain said that it is “not a theoretical risk.”

Dr Hussain also said:

“The risk for somewhere like Bradford, where we are doing okay—we have a long way to go—is that the Bill creates a fear in those communities. I have been going out and trying to build trust—being trustworthy—and they made it really clear to me by saying, ‘We trust you; we don’t trust the system. So if I came into hospital, even if your team was there, I would be really scared to access palliative care.’ In a system that is doing okay, we are now adding this new risk. We need to mitigate against that.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 199, Q259.]

That is what we need to do. We need to listen to what the doctors who are treating vulnerable patients say about the risks to those people.

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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

It is a well-made case; I am still reflecting on it, because of the somewhat complex nature of my role on this Committee, but I am inclined to support the hon. Member’s amendment.

Amendment 11 also seeks to amend clause 2(3). Our assessment of the effect of this amendment is that a person who has a mental disorder and/or a disability may not qualify under the Bill as terminally ill, even if they have an inevitably progressive illness and can be reasonably expected to die within six months. There might be concerns from the point of view of the European convention on human rights and the Equality Act if the amendment were passed as currently drafted, because its effect would be to exclude people from the provisions of the Bill if they had a disability or a mental disorder. That may not be the intention of the hon. Members who tabled the amendment.

I turn to amendment 181. In executing our duty to ensure that the legislation, if passed, is legally robust and workable, the Government have advised my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley in relation to the amendment. It clarifies that a person who seeks assistance to end their own life based only on a mental disorder or a disability, or both, would not be considered terminally ill for the purposes of the Bill. Such a person would therefore not be eligible to be provided with assistance to end their own life under the Bill. Someone who has a disability or a mental disorder, or both, and who also already meets all the criteria for terminal illness set out in the Bill would not be excluded by the amendment, as drafted. The amendment therefore brings important legal clarity to the Bill.

Amendment 283 sets out that a person who has one or more comorbidities, alongside a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983, would not be considered terminally ill by virtue of those comorbidities alone. The reality of modern healthcare is that many patients, not least those towards the end of life, will be dealing with several conditions or comorbidities. The term “comorbidity” in a clinical context can sometimes be used to distinguish the main problem that someone has experienced experiencing from additional but less serious problems, but it can also be used by those specialising in one or more other aspects of a patient’s care to distinguish their area of focus from other issues.

In the context of the Bill, the essential test is whether any morbidity, comorbidity or otherwise, meets the requirements in the Bill. Although it is unlikely that a terminal morbidity would be thought of as a comorbidity, it is not inconceivable that it might be, for the reasons that I have set out. The phrasing of the amendment, notably the term “alongside”, potentially increases that possibility. The effect might be that a condition that would otherwise be considered terminal would instead be considered a comorbidity alongside a mental disorder. The amendment would prevent a person with a mental disorder who would, but for the amendment, have been considered terminally ill from accessing assisted dying services under the Bill.

As I have said, the Government have taken a neutral position on the substantive policy questions relevant to how the law in this area could be changed. However, to ensure that the legislation works as intended, we have advised the sponsor in relation to amendment 181, to further clarify the Bill such that only having a disability and/or mental disorder does not make a person terminally ill and eligible for assistance in accordance with the Bill.

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

Most of the discussion on amendment 181 has centred on the word “only”. Just to get clarification on this point, would someone with an eating disorder who was later diagnosed with a terminal illness still be able to access an assisted death, if that were required under the amendment?

[Stephen Kinnock]

My answer to that question is yes. My understanding is that so long as the terminally ill, six-month criteria are met, that person would qualify for assistance under the Bill.

[Jack Abbott]

Just to be absolutely clear for everyone in the room, and in case I was not specific enough, if that terminal illness is a result of the eating disorder, rather than, say, of that person also being diagnosed with a terminal illness such as cancer, would they be covered under amendment 181?

[Stephen Kinnock]

My understanding is that amendment 181 is clear that the qualification for accessing assisted dying has to be based on the definitions in the main body of the Bill. If passed by the Committee, the amendment will make it clear that an eating disorder does not qualify for access to that service. There has to be another, clear definition that does qualify under the terms set out in the main body of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, for making it clear that they would not vote for the amendment. I also thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for bringing forward an amendment that discusses those issues. However, whether it is withdrawn or not, it is an amendment that we are debating and talking to.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who tabled the amendment, no doubt feels very strongly that the conditions of patients with neurodegenerative diseases make a case for relaxing the six-month prognosis to 12. There may well be a good case for doing so, but we can only consider the case for extending the prognosis to 12 months because of the challenges created by neurodegenerative diseases if we have first considered that extremely complex subject.

We cannot say that the Committee has studied the difficult subject of neurodegenerative diseases and how they would affect the administration of the Bill. We have not heard from witnesses on the subject, and we have not been able to ask them questions. We did solicit evidence on whether neurodegenerative diseases would affect the ability to self-administer lethal drugs, but we have not had time to study the written evidence.

I appreciate that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is not going to press the amendment to a Division, which leaves some of what I wrote earlier obsolete. I appreciate the hon. Member’s efforts. We are sent here by our constituents to represent them to the best of our ability. I certainly try to do that, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley always tries to do that—I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and all others are trying to do that. We vow to represent our constituents, and had the amendment gone to a Division I would not have been able to support it, simply because we cannot make those difficult decisions without being properly informed. We cannot make up our minds to change the Bill because of a complex set of diseases.

[Jack Abbott]

Just as a point of clarification, I remember asking one of the witnesses at our oral evidence sessions about this very issue—Sir Nicholas Mostyn, an esteemed judge who has written and spoken about the issue extensively. We asked his views about neurodegenerative diseases and extending the time to 12 months, so it was something that we were aware of and discussed as a Committee. In fairness to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, it has not come completely out of the blue.

[Naz Shah]

I agree that we did hear that, but we did not hear from experts in the Bill, and at that point it was not discussed. While I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s point that we did speak to Sir Nicholas Mostyn, we did not have further evidence, and this measure was not in the Bill when we took evidence from those witnesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I will be as quick as I can be. I recognise the powerful contributions that have been made on a number of the amendments. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Broxtowe, who made a very interesting speech in support of her amendment 123. I was struck by her point that we should do what we can to reflect the reality of clinical situations in people’s lives. I very much respect the power of the arguments she made. My concern is that by changing “inevitably” to “typically”, her amendment, although it might reflect reality more closely, would widen the scope of eligibility. I am afraid I will not support her amendment, but she made an important speech about how things actually work.

I will speak briefly in support of amendment 282 in the name of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and of amendments 48 and 402 in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford West. At the end, I will refer quickly to the amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). All those amendments, with exception of the last ones, fit the Bill to the campaign—they make the Bill more accurately applicable to the people whom the campaigners have been campaigning for and whom everyone has the most sympathy with.

Amendment 282 in the name of the hon. Member for York Central would restrict eligibility to people with a one-month diagnosis only. I stress that the amendment is probing and I do not propose to press it to a vote on her behalf. She tabled it and I am speaking to it to make the point that, if we are serious about the Bill being for people who are dying and not for people who are not—for people at the very end of their life, as we hear so often—we need to be much stricter about the period of prognosis. I will not repeat points that have been made by other hon. Members, but the fact is that the six-month test is literally as good as tossing a coin. It has a less than 50% accuracy. In particular for advanced cancers and neurological conditions, accuracy is very low.

[Jack Abbott]

A line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere. Will the hon. Member define what an adequate timeline would look like for him to be satisfied?

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Member invites me to suggest that I think it would be possible to draw a safe safeguard. I do not. I think that one month is better than six months, because with one month we can have more accuracy and doctors are more genuinely right when they say that someone is close to death at that point, while six months is much more inaccurate and 12 months is notoriously inaccurate. If we restrict the Bill by using a time limit, that limit should be as close to death as possible in my view.

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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Order. I did say one question per person; we have to stick to the timings.

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

Q Dr Fellingham, given your experience of both the British and the Australian healthcare systems, do you believe there are any fundamental differences that would affect how assisted dying is implemented in this country? If there are, how might we be able to mitigate them?

Dr Fellingham: In the UK you are missing a number of the challenges that we have, such as the geographical challenges in a state as vast as Western Australia. You also have a golden opportunity to look, as you are, across every jurisdiction that already has laws in operation and cherry-pick the best bits of what is working well in those jurisdictions, and so create the very best, most robust and most patient-centred legislation you can.

The healthcare systems are broadly similar. We are both first-world, developed western countries. We are still operating in a context of resource limitation, but not resource limitation that is so prohibitive that it would make it particularly difficult to enact a law in the UK. The United Kingdom would be broadly able to follow any of the laws that exist in Australia and implement them very successfully.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for joining us this morning. I am interested in following up on what Dr Mewett said about the relationship with palliative care, which has an important role to play in end of life treatment. What is the relationship between assisted dying and the palliative care world like? Also, I would like to hear a bit more about the multidisciplinary board, which I think you set up, Dr McLaren. What does the multidisciplinary approach look like in your jurisdictions?

Dr Mewett: There is no doubt that traditionally palliative care has eschewed any idea of voluntary assisted dying, for a number of historical reasons that I have spoken about in other fora and will not go into now. But it is changing, and there is a general change in attitude, especially among the younger palliative care training doctors and young clinicians, who see this as part of patient-centred care, honouring the patient’s autonomy and choice, while still addressing deeply their concerns and suffering in pain management and so on.

That will see a change. I do understand where it has come from. When one looks at it almost forensically, it does not stack up and will continue not to stack up to have someone saying, “Well, VAD is not part of palliative care.” VAD is part of patient choice and it will be part of palliative care ongoing. That will evolve over time.

I am sorry but I did not quite catch the meaning of the question about the multidisciplinary aspect, Ms Leadbeater.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you. This will have to be the last question.

[Jack Abbott]

Q I have a question for Mr Amin. You worked on the judicial review of Noel Conway in 2018. For the benefit of the Committee and those watching, Mr Conway had terminal motor neurone disease and he looked to bring a judicial review in order to have the option of assisted death, when he was in the final six months of his life. Mr Amin, what were your experiences from that case that may inform the Committee’s learnings when looking at the Bill?

Yogi Amin: Mr Conway was an extremely intelligent and brave individual who campaigned in this area. His strong view about autonomy led him to bring that case, and what he was arguing for in that case forms part of what you have here in the Bill. He was certainly asking for a process in which a decision could be made and some robust safeguards could be provided, which would end up with a court process, and that is what you have within the Bill. I also learned through that case, and others over the years, what the Human Rights Act, the European convention and parliamentary sovereignty mean here. On all three counts, the cases have always said that it is Parliament that makes the decision—so it is you who are deciding. I do not see a court overturning that.

The courts in the Conway case—the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court—were all very clear that it is a matter for Parliament. I really do not see the European Court of Human Rights overturning it in any way at all, and that is from my long experience. The margin of appreciation is very strong with this Parliament to make the decision. I also think, from a drafting perspective, the Bill very carefully defines the individuals—it has drawn the line. Certainly, the courts cannot do it; they cannot extend that line and they will always defer back to Parliament. If you craft the Bill as it is, I am very confident that it will be left here.

[The Chair]

Order. I am terribly sorry but we are out of time.

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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Order. I did say one question per person; we have to stick to the timings.

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

Q Dr Fellingham, given your experience of both the British and the Australian healthcare systems, do you believe there are any fundamental differences that would affect how assisted dying is implemented in this country? If there are, how might we be able to mitigate them?

Dr Fellingham: In the UK you are missing a number of the challenges that we have, such as the geographical challenges in a state as vast as Western Australia. You also have a golden opportunity to look, as you are, across every jurisdiction that already has laws in operation and cherry-pick the best bits of what is working well in those jurisdictions, and so create the very best, most robust and most patient-centred legislation you can.

The healthcare systems are broadly similar. We are both first-world, developed western countries. We are still operating in a context of resource limitation, but not resource limitation that is so prohibitive that it would make it particularly difficult to enact a law in the UK. The United Kingdom would be broadly able to follow any of the laws that exist in Australia and implement them very successfully.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for joining us this morning. I am interested in following up on what Dr Mewett said about the relationship with palliative care, which has an important role to play in end of life treatment. What is the relationship between assisted dying and the palliative care world like? Also, I would like to hear a bit more about the multidisciplinary board, which I think you set up, Dr McLaren. What does the multidisciplinary approach look like in your jurisdictions?

Dr Mewett: There is no doubt that traditionally palliative care has eschewed any idea of voluntary assisted dying, for a number of historical reasons that I have spoken about in other fora and will not go into now. But it is changing, and there is a general change in attitude, especially among the younger palliative care training doctors and young clinicians, who see this as part of patient-centred care, honouring the patient’s autonomy and choice, while still addressing deeply their concerns and suffering in pain management and so on.

That will see a change. I do understand where it has come from. When one looks at it almost forensically, it does not stack up and will continue not to stack up to have someone saying, “Well, VAD is not part of palliative care.” VAD is part of patient choice and it will be part of palliative care ongoing. That will evolve over time.

I am sorry but I did not quite catch the meaning of the question about the multidisciplinary aspect, Ms Leadbeater.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you. This will have to be the last question.

[Jack Abbott]

Q I have a question for Mr Amin. You worked on the judicial review of Noel Conway in 2018. For the benefit of the Committee and those watching, Mr Conway had terminal motor neurone disease and he looked to bring a judicial review in order to have the option of assisted death, when he was in the final six months of his life. Mr Amin, what were your experiences from that case that may inform the Committee’s learnings when looking at the Bill?

Yogi Amin: Mr Conway was an extremely intelligent and brave individual who campaigned in this area. His strong view about autonomy led him to bring that case, and what he was arguing for in that case forms part of what you have here in the Bill. He was certainly asking for a process in which a decision could be made and some robust safeguards could be provided, which would end up with a court process, and that is what you have within the Bill. I also learned through that case, and others over the years, what the Human Rights Act, the European convention and parliamentary sovereignty mean here. On all three counts, the cases have always said that it is Parliament that makes the decision—so it is you who are deciding. I do not see a court overturning that.

The courts in the Conway case—the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court—were all very clear that it is a matter for Parliament. I really do not see the European Court of Human Rights overturning it in any way at all, and that is from my long experience. The margin of appreciation is very strong with this Parliament to make the decision. I also think, from a drafting perspective, the Bill very carefully defines the individuals—it has drawn the line. Certainly, the courts cannot do it; they cannot extend that line and they will always defer back to Parliament. If you craft the Bill as it is, I am very confident that it will be left here.

[The Chair]

Order. I am terribly sorry but we are out of time.

Mental Health Support

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) for securing this important debate on World Mental Health Day. Sitting in the Chamber are Members from every corner of the country and from all sides of the House—evidence that the mental health crisis is undeniably a national one.

My constituents in Ipswich, under the Norfolk and Suffolk mental health trust, suffer a particularly desperate service in an already broken system. Since its creation in 2012, the Norfolk and Suffolk foundation trust has been—it arguably still is—the worst-performing mental health trust in the whole country. It was the first mental health trust to be put into special measures, in 2015, and it was then put into the NHS recovery support programme when the body was set up in 2021.

We are almost entirely accustomed to the slew of reports that find that the trust “requires improvement” or is “inadequate”, but time does not allow me to give a detailed overview of the litany of failures that have brought us to this point. However, there are two key tenets to the scandal. First, there is the scandal of the perhaps euphemistically named unexpected or avoidable deaths. The 2022 Care Quality Commission report found that there were 155 such deaths in the two years preceding the report, and the NSFT’s own “Learning from Deaths” report admitted to 418 unexpected unnatural deaths in a four-year period. Many of those deaths were entirely avoidable suicides, some while directly in the NSFT’s care. Those numbers, even taken at face value, which is unfortunately hard to do given the trust’s record, are emblematic of what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) aptly called the “slow-motion disaster” of mental health care.

Secondly, there is the cruel detail of unrecorded or unaccounted deaths, which led to thousands of people falling through the gaps, left off official statistics and totted up retrospectively as if they were a mere glitch in the system—the dead dehumanised, lost and buried in spreadsheets. It is not right that, after facing allegations as serious as the NSFT has faced, it should be allowed to mark its on homework on the matter.

But with a new Government comes an opportunity for a new approach. I therefore ask the Minister to meet me to discuss a pathway to justice and to change Suffolk’s mental health services. This is the crux of the debate. The families who have suffered so much deserve justice, and all my constituents deserve change. Those two things are inseparable—we simply cannot have one without the other—and there is no time to waste in delivering them.