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

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Tom Gordon]

That was a really comprehensive answer. I think the key point that you touched on is the multidisciplinary approach.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

Q Thank you both very much for being here today. Throughout this whole discussion, for many months, there has been a lot of talk about palliative care and pain management, which can lead patients to come to a decision or to consider assisted dying as an option. If a doctor has suggested to a patient that assisted dying is an option, or a patient has said that they are considering assisted dying, do you think that they should be referred to another clinician? Or do you think that there should be an independent organisation—a non-clinical setting—where a patient can go to have further discussions before taking the assisted dying route?

Professor Ranger: I think there is something really important about having a big difference in the beginning with regard to palliative care and assisted dying, and pain management. It is essential that those two things are slightly separated, because it would be heartbreaking to think that pain management was the primary reason that someone wanted to be assisted to die. We should be able to control and support someone’s symptoms and pain.

I think the primary thing with regard to being referred to another organisation is autonomy. I absolutely agree with what was said earlier: you would want anyone who is considering assisted dying to be slightly separated out of their normal clinical pathway, so it is not part of mainstream care for someone in a hospital or an organisation. There is something really important about separating that out, both in the discussions around the decision making and in any care involved in assisting them to die. I think those two things do need to be separated.

[Juliet Campbell]

Q So rather than going straight to “I have made this request, or this has been suggested to me, and this is the path we are going down,” there is something that should happen in between.

Professor Ranger: Well, you would not really want any clinician to push this view on any patient. It has to come from the person themselves. That is the key thing around capacity and autonomy. I do not think that people should ever say to a patient or an individual, “Is this something you have considered?” It has to be led by the patient.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Q Professor Ranger, may I pick up on the points that Glyn Berry made about the different circumstances in which patients find themselves? The barriers to healthcare as a result of health inequalities, access to education and disability are well documented. How could your members help to remove the barriers for such groups in access to the provision of assisted dying?

Professor Ranger: It is vital that any of those barriers be removed and that we always maintain outstanding care at the end of someone’s life. The reality is that the majority of palliative care is given by nursing staff, whether it is in the community, in someone’s home, in a hospice or in a hospital. It is key that it be an expertise and a specialist practice in which someone has extra training and extra education. The skills of listening to patients, advocating for them and ensuring that they are pain-free at the end of their life—these are skills that nurses have now, and it is vital that our nursing members maintain them. They are often the one a patient will speak to at 3 in the morning when no one is there.

As Glyn said, it is vital that the wider team be included in the Bill. The Bill talks about the guidance and recommendations being for the chief medical officer, but I think it is absolutely vital that the chief nursing officer be a key part of the guidance and the drawing up of any care, because even in these circumstances it is nursing staff who will give the majority of the care.

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

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

Q I have a question for James Sanderson and one for Dr Clarke. They are quite similar, but I will refer to things you have said. James, you said:

“Sadly, only half the people who need palliative care receive it.”

In your opinion, who are the people who receive palliative, and who does do not?

My question to Dr Clarke is similar. You have talked about the population being

“carved up into two groups…those who deserve to live and those are expendable”.

Could you expand on that quote and the two groups you referred to, as well as the impact that has on their treatment and care?

James Sanderson: You draw a really important point about not just the provision and totality of palliative care across the country but the inequity of access. Unfortunately, we find that the diversity of people who are accessing care in hospices across the country is less than those who are dying in hospital—43% of people currently die in hospital.

One of the things we really need to do is move to a new ecosystem of palliative care that looks at supporting people in different settings. We need specialist provision in hospices to support people with significant needs, but increasingly hospices are reaching out beyond their walls into the community, and 80% of Sue Ryder’s work is in people’s own homes. People tell us that they want to die at home, so supporting people in their own homes enables us to access more diverse communities and get to people in their own setting.

Increasingly, one of the things we feel is necessary is the provision of support inside hospital. Alongside wards, we would bring support to that 43% of people who are currently dying in hospital, to ensure there is equality of access in all places, both in in-patient settings and in the community. You draw a really important point that we have to look at the totality of provision and ensure that, when someone is offered palliative care—the Bill talks about that provision being available—there is universal access, in terms of the type of palliative care available and the access for everybody in society.

Dr Clarke: My comment refers to the fact that there is an immense gulf between the theory of the NHS being a cradle-to-grave service—or a service that cares for us at the end of life as it does at the start—and the reality. The reality that I see every day at work in my hospital is patients coming into the emergency department from the community sometimes in utter, abject misery, in agony, with a lack of dignity. They have been forgotten completely. They are not getting healthcare or social care, and no one cares about them.

Even in the hospital, patients who have a terminal diagnosis are sometimes cast out into the corners of the hospital. There are hospitals, and mine is one currently, where we do not even have a 24/7 palliative care service face to face. Every night in my hospital, and every weekend from Friday to Monday, you cannot see a palliative care nurse or doctor, despite the fact that for a number of years that has been an NHS standard. That is an absolute disgrace and it shows how little people who are dying are truly cared for in a civilised society.

It does not necessarily have anything to do with assisted dying, except that if we do not address that simultaneously, some of those people will “choose” to end their life, because we as a society do not care about them enough to give them the care that might make life worth living. Surely that is a travesty for Britain.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Q I have a question for Dr Clarke and Dr Cox about the registration of deaths, which is dealt with in clause 29. Do you feel that the provisions set out in the clause are sufficient? If not, what further bolstering would provide the oversight needed to ensure that the processes and procedures are followed correctly?

Dr Cox: My understanding of the plan is that in the Bill—forgive me, but I am sketchy on this—the aim is for the registration to be as a natural death. It would not be referred to the coroner, and “assisted dying” would appear on the death certificate.

I am also a medical examiner. My concern is that, as a medical examiner, I am obliged by law to scrutinise all deaths to ensure that a referral to the coroner is not required and to identify any learnings. What concerns me in that role is whether enough recording is happening around decision making and the process to do my job properly. With my medical examiner hat on, do I know what happened? I do not see anything written down in the Bill about the records that are to be kept. What happened when the patient took the substance? What happened afterwards? Were any actions taken in the meantime? That is not so much something I have thought about a lot with my palliative care consultant hat on, but as a medical examiner it concerns me.

Dr Clarke: For the sake of time, I do not have anything to add. I completely agree with that.

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

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Rachel Hopkins]

You have given clarity. Thank you.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

Q My question is for Professor Shakespeare and Dr Griffiths. Clause 4 of the Bill offers the opportunity for clinicians to instigate the discussion on assisted dying. Could you both tell me your view on that, please?

Professor Shakespeare: It is natural and right that somebody should discuss their wishes with a doctor who supports and treats them. I do not think there is a problem there. Marie’s suggestion that there should be a wider body to look at this is very relevant. At the moment, doctors refer women for abortions, and that does not stop them also supporting pregnant women. I do not think that women would distrust their doctor because they are sometimes involved, at some point, with an abortion decision. That is quite obvious. As my colleague Yogi Amin said, the Bill covers what the terminal illness is, and why we should support people to voluntarily exercise their choices. Lots of doctors will not be in favour of this, but they will be clinically professional and they will discuss with the person. I do not have a concern about that. You are more likely to be kept alive against your will than you are to end your life under this Act.

Dr Griffiths: My first point is that, for me, the Bill raises concerns because it relies on doctors’ interpretations of prognosis. If a doctor assumes that you have six months left to live, and is therefore going to start having a conversation with you about the possibility of assisted suicide, that draws into question how we allow assumptions to be made about whether an individual has six months left to live. That is particularly the case given that we have evidence that shows that, with certain interventions or mishaps surrounding prognosis, individuals can live for months, years and decades longer. The idea of bringing in the conversation from the point of view of the medical practitioner could, arguably, accelerate one’s death—if you take into account that their idea of prognosis might be flawed.

It also, I think, raises problems, because we know that many individuals with health conditions and impairments—irrespective of whether we want to create this false line between disabled people and people with terminal illness—do not have access to advocacy or representation in these kinds of processes. Having a conversation where there is extreme credibility and validity that rests on the medical practitioner could exacerbate issues around coercion.

We could take a moment of reflection. When we were going through the pandemic, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman highlighted how medical practitioners could think about “do not attempt resuscitation” orders and how they were utilised in the disabled people’s community. That has parallels with the issue we have here, where medical practitioners will be making assumptions about whether conversations or applications should be made.

Yogi Amin: Can I just raise one point on representation? I point Members to paragraph 10 in my written submission, which tries to make the important point that if we are involving courts, individuals need access to justice. They need access to advice, and that means legal aid. I point in that paragraph to the provision of non-means-tested legal aid, just like in the case of parents of children and the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Those current rules are in place for parents, and a similar arrangement could be put in place for individuals who are brought before the court in this matter.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Q I have a question for Mr Amin. England and Wales is a single jurisdiction, but health is devolved and we have been discussing an amendment to clause 12 in relation to the court of a multidisciplinary arrangement, as opposed to the High Court. What are the implications for the Committee to understand in how this plays out, with health being devolved but the jurisdiction being single?

Yogi Amin: If the legal panel is not a High Court judge, but it is a multidisciplinary panel, then it just draws upon the people in the local areas. The Court of Protection operates in England and Wales and the judges apply the law the same way. That is what the panel would do in this case. Are you more concerned about the make-up of the panel or how they apply it?

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

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Q There was one thing I wanted to ask about, but it led me to another question, which is to Dr Naomi Richards. It seems that much of what we are discussing assumes that being patient-centric is intrinsic and runs day to day through medical culture. Is that actually the case in your experience? If not, is there something within the culture that needs to change to become more patient-centric in order to enable autonomy?

Dr Richards: I think you probably know the answer is that it is not patient-centric. In Marie Curie’s “Better End of Life Report 2024”, which was a representational survey with bereaved relatives, a third of people did not think that their relative even knew that they were dying. We still have a long way to go in communicating to people that they are in a terminal phase, so that they can find whatever residual value is in that period of time for themselves and their family. So, no, definitely not, but that is what we are striving for. I am sure that that is what all healthcare professionals are striving for.

In terms of assisted dying, it would be so explicit. It is categorically different from other kinds of conversations that are much more open-ended, like goals of care conversations at end of life. This is really quite specific, to the extent that you can actually give doctors a form of words to use, because their request for this procedure needs to be so categorical and there needs to be no ambiguity around that.

In a way, this conversation about assisted dying is actually different because it is very up front, it has to be very categorical and it has to be documented. In that sense, it is extremely patient-centric, and there would be no using euphemisms, which happens in end-of-life care, when what doctors think they have told their patients they do not hear. They have heard something else, because euphemisms change according to—well, you do not even have to go so far as to talk about different communities or cultural groups; they change from one person to another. I think this would require quite specific language. It would bring things into a much less ambiguous kind of territory.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

Q My question is to Professor Preston. I will go back to something you said in your last answer, when we talked about how people are treated, and the differences and inequalities across society but also within our healthcare systems and how things are done. This was highlighted specifically during the pandemic. How do you think these inequalities will undermine the principles of the Bill?

Professor Preston: I think it is about having that additional consideration. When additional consideration for, perhaps, social deprivation or about people from minority groups is in the training and is at the forefront of people’s thinking, they can address it.

I will give you an example. We did a study looking at access to palliative care. I know you have heard a lot about there being a postcode lottery and things like that. One of our areas is one of the most deprived coastal communities in the country, and yet it had equal access for people across all areas of society, because they brought in people to target anyone from those socially deprived areas.

Equally, at the beginning of the first wave of the pandemic, at one of the big London hospitals, we analysed the data because we were concerned about access to palliative care services. Were people accessing it during the pandemic? We also looked by ethnicity. What we found was that not only during the pandemic, but pre-pandemic, if you were non-white, it took—I don’t know—three or five days longer to get that referral.

We had an idea that from some of the research we had done on social deprivation, people are making assumptions. It is not about people making horrible decisions, but they are making assumptions: “Oh, they will have a big family—the family will look after them. This will happen or that will happen.”

The nurse consultant, Claude Chidiac, went in and did training for the staff and said, “Don’t assume that just because people come from an Afro-Caribbean family that they have got this big family.” Within a year, when the second wave happened, the difference had gone. It can be at the forefront of training and you can make people really think about it. I would say—I think someone said it yesterday—that there is almost an inverse inequality, because I think those families and those communities will be really trying to protect people from even thinking about going for it.

[Daniel Francis]

Q My question is to Claire Williams and follows on from Dr Opher’s question. Clause 18(9) says that once the person has self-administered the approved substance, the doctor must stay with them until they have died, or until it has been determined by the co-ordinating doctor that the procedure has failed. We know from overseas that, in a very small number of cases, the procedure may take three or four days, so clearly the doctor cannot stay with them the whole time. Subsection (10) says that the doctor need not be in the same room as the person to whom the assistance is provided. I want to understand how that could be strengthened in terms of safeguarding. The clause says that the doctor must stay with them but, first, it is clearly not practical for the doctor to stay with them for a number of days, and, secondly, it goes on to say that the doctor need not be in the same room.

Claire Williams: Again, I can only apologise, as my evidence is about a committee-based, panel approach to decision making rather than what happens at that point of end of life. I do not know whether somebody else is able to come in.

Professor Preston: I can take that if you want.

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

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Kim Leadbeater]

On that point, it is not an either/or. It is not just about passing legislation that improves choice and gives autonomy and dignity to dying people, and indeed fixes the current failings of the law as it stands, as we have discussed in great detail. It is about providing safeguards that make sure that is done safely, securely and robustly, and that address the issues and concerns we are discussing. It is not an either/or and it is important to make that distinction.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

rose—

[Danny Kruger]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady.

[Danny Kruger]

If the hon. Lady would like to intervene on me, I would be happy to give way.

[Juliet Campbell]

To go back to the amendment, we were talking about the Mental Capacity Act. The use of that Act must be drawn into question, because it was never intended as legislation for assisted dying. Much of what has been said in favour of using the MCA relates to it being tried and tested, and people understanding it, and the idea that to use anything else would make life complicated for professionals who use it as part of their day-to-day activities when assessing capacity.

On the surface, those reasons seem reasonable, and it is an easy option. However, if the MCA does not meet the threshold of meeting the needs of everyone, convenience should not be the deciding factor. Convenience cannot be considered as a sufficient reason to use the MCA as a fundamental element of the Bill. The assisted dying Bill in itself is enough reason to have an alternative measure to determine an individual’s eligibility to be considered for assisted dying.

[The Chair]

Order. I am going to have to draw the hon. Lady to order. An intervention is an intervention. I accept that we have slightly more flexibility in Committee than we do on the Floor of the House, but the hon Lady, and indeed all hon. Members, have to understand that speeches are speeches and interventions are interventions. That said, it is the job of the Chair to make absolutely certain that every Member has the right and the opportunity to speak. If the hon. Lady wishes to make a speech, that is entirely within her right: all she has to do is indicate to the Chair that she would like to be called and she will get called.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

This whole conversation has taught me that we are not on top of the Mental Capacity Act or the conversation about ability, which is why it is so important to have these conversations, even if it is just to try to get to the nub of the issue. Amendments that I will speak to later will clarify my position, but from the evidence I have heard, I will be supporting the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. That is because the test needs to be much higher than the Mental Capacity Act on its own when it concerns the issue of choosing assisted dying. For that reason, I will support the amendment.

[Juliet Campbell]

I thank the Committee for allowing me to reiterate the importance of a stand-alone approach. The use of the Mental Capacity Act must be questioned, as the Act was never intended to legislate for assisted dying. Much of what has been said in favour of using the Mental Capacity Act has been about it being tried and tested, so people understand it and to use anything else would make life complicated for professionals who use it as part of their day-to-day activities in assessing capacity.

On the surface, those reasons do seem reasonable and make the Mental Capacity Act an easy option. If, however, the Act does not pass the threshold of meeting everyone’s needs, convenience should not be the deciding factor. Convenience cannot be considered a sufficient reason to use the Mental Capacity Act, as it is a fundamental element of the Bill. The Bill is in itself enough reason to have an alternative or stand-alone approach to determine an individual’s eligibility to be considered for an assisted death.

Capacity is a complicated issue and cannot be oversimplified for convenience. The MCA may be fit for its current purpose, but it is not fit for the purpose of the assisted dying Bill. I have spent more than 20 years working on the equalities agenda, and one of the things that I have learned—this has been a consistent shortfall—is that we try to address new challenges with old solutions, rather than trying to meet the needs of the people we intend to serve. That is the reason why I will be supporting the amendment.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. As was noted earlier, the Government remain neutral. My role here is not to offer a Government view on the merits of the amendments but to provide a factual explanation of their technical and practical effect, to assist the Committee in its scrutiny. This group of amendments focuses on the concept of mental capacity. As drafted, the Bill, in clause 3, states that

“references to a person having capacity are to be read in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005”,

with sections 1 to 3 of that Act establishing the principles and criteria for assessing a person’s capacity to make decisions. New clause 1, which would replace clause 3, and amendments 34 to 47, would collectively introduce the concept of an individual having the ability to make the decision to request assistance to end their life. A person’s ability would be determined by whether they could

“fully understand, use and weigh the relevant information in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

That is intended to replace the term “capacity”, used in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which provides a very specific definition of what it means to lack capacity in relation to a particular decision. A lack of capacity under this framework means that a person must be unable to understand, use and weigh information relevant to the decision, and that that must be directly caused by

“an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.”

The “ability” proposal, as drafted, deals only with the use and weight of information.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Once again, it is a shame that we are feeling our way in the absence of that assessment. Nevertheless, I think we all have experience and we can draw on the evidence. The hon. Member for Bradford West made a very powerful point, and she was absolutely right. I spoke earlier about the evidence on suicide among the male prison population; I have experience of working with women in prison as well. There is a genuine danger of chronic, almost epidemic, self-harm among the female prison population. Likewise—this is a fact that we need to bear in mind throughout the debate—suicide is itself contagious. That is why it is so important to discuss it in a responsible way. The option—I use the term advisedly—of assisted suicide is itself dangerous in the context of a prison population in which these ideas are contagious.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire talks about the need to assess each case on its own merits, individually. I recognise that, and in principle of course that is what we should be doing. Nevertheless, that assumes that the safeguards in the Bill are adequate to the challenge of dealing with people in such particularly vulnerable circumstances. I am concerned that they are not adequate anyway. I believe very strongly that they are not appropriate to people in these circumstances and that therefore it is appropriate to have what he calls a blanket ban.

As I said in an intervention earlier, we have to treat particular classes of people in the same way. We do that all the time, with respect specifically to the prison population. The fact is that we have to draw the line somewhere. We are drawing the line in all sorts of places in this Bill—around the age limit and around diagnosis and prognosis. I think it would be very appropriate, given the extreme vulnerability of these populations, to draw it around them and protect them from the vulnerabilities and dangers that I think all Members recognise might apply in certain circumstances. They will apply in heightened likelihood to these populations.

I do not propose to press these amendments to a vote, but I am grateful to hon. Members for the points that they have made, and I hope that the concerns have been noted. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 179, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, after “provided” insert “in England or Wales”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment limits the assistance that may be provided in accordance with the Bill to assistance in England or Wales.

[Juliet Campbell]

I beg to move amendment 109, in clause 1, page 1, line 17, after first “and” insert “demonstrably”.

This amendment reflects the changes in Amendments 110 to 112 that change the requirement from having to establish that a person who wishes to end their own life under the Act has clear, settled and informed wish, to a clear, settled and demonstrably informed wish.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 110, in clause 7, page 4, line 13, after “and” insert “demonstrably”.

This amendment requires the coordinating doctor to ascertain whether, in their opinion, the person has a “demonstrably” informed wish to end their own life.

Amendment 111, in clause 8, page 4, line 36, after “and” insert “demonstrably”.

This amendment requires the independent doctor to ascertain whether, in their opinion, the person has a “demonstrably” informed wish to end their own life.

Amendment 112, in clause 9, page 6, line 13, at end insert—

“(da) be satisfied that, in their opinion, the person has demonstrated their understanding of the matters in subsections (2)(b) to (2)(d).”

This amendment requires the assessing doctor to be satisfied that, in their opinion, the person has demonstrated their understanding of the matters that have to be discussed and the information provided under subsections (2)(b) to (2)(d).

[Juliet Campbell]

The amendment would strengthen the Bill by establishing a benchmark for the level of understanding of assisted dying and its process that the person needs to demonstrate to start the process. That will help to ensure that the person requesting assisted dying understands what they are asking for, so that doctors and other professionals can be assured that those who are engaged in the process have come to their own informed choice. Being informed conceptually is meaningless; it adds nothing to the Bill unless we can establish that the person can demonstrate to healthcare professionals and others that they understand assisted dying and the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman is a great stickler for doing things in the right order. I am grateful to him for calling us to order on that point again. I dare say that he is absolutely right. All these issues are rather interwoven through the Bill.

I will finish on a point about the role of the Court of Appeal. A rejected application—although not an approved application, I am sorry to say—can be appealed under clause 12. For the Court of Appeal’s review to be substantive, it must surely be able to review the evidence as fully as possible on what happened throughout the terminally ill person’s application.

[Juliet Campbell]

I still think that it is important to add “demonstrably”. The word should be included; I do not see that it would create any additional confusion. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said that he had tabled some amendments later on in the Bill. However, that is later on. Putting in “demonstrably” here would strengthen his proposal.

[Naz Shah]

Does my hon. Friend share my frustration that when the Minister says, “This is the Government’s position,” he says so in the absence of an equality assessment or impact assessment? I appreciate that the Government have outlined that the process is different, but in the absence of those assessments, where do we find the weight to support those positions?

[Juliet Campbell]

I absolutely agree. The word “demonstrably” could produce that weight. It could add to every other part of the Bill that a person must be able to demonstrate to health and social care professionals that they understand what assisted dying is and understand the process that will be gone through. The person needs to be able to demonstrate to other professionals that they understand. A written report by a health or social care professional is not enough; the person themselves will have to demonstrate that they have a full and clear understanding.

[The Chair]

Does the hon. Lady wish to press the amendment to a Division? It is her call.

[Juliet Campbell]

I will not push it to a vote, Sir Roger. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Bambos Charalambous.)

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

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jake Richards]

My reading of the Bill—we are dealing with clause 1, but we will get to clause 24—is that clause 24(3) says:

“In the Suicide Act 1961, after section 2A (acts capable of encouraging or assisting suicide) insert”,

followed by the provisions in new section 2AA.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

I have a question for the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. We are having a lengthy conversation about coercion and pressure, and whether those two words are a catch-all for things that can be much more subtle and nuanced. That is the point of the amendment, and it is the point that I will make when I speak to the amendment I have tabled. Clause 26 suddenly introduces new language, with the word “dishonesty”, which brings in another type of coercion and pressure. Could we rethink the wording of clause 1(2)(b), which refers to a person who

“has made the decision that they wish to end their own life voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured”?

The words “coerced” and “pressured” are insufficient to cover the safeguards that we are asking for. They are not a catch-all. We are asking for something much more nuanced, and for other words to be added, just as the word “dishonesty” appears in clause 26.

[Jake Richards]

I did not draft the legislation, but my understanding is that the reason why the word “dishonesty” appears in clause 26—I do not know whether the Minister wants to comment on this—is that when there is a criminal offence, there needs to be a mens rea. The person who has committed the offence needs to have been intentional or reckless in doing so. As I say, I was a criminal barrister only very briefly; I am sure my law tutors are shaking their heads.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

On the first point, in fairness, the hon. Member for Reigate was talking about a clause that we are going to consider and the link between two different criminal offences in the 1961 Act and clause 26 of the Bill.

On the second point, the Bill—to coin a political phrase—needs to be fit for the future. The language used in legislation over the last decade when we are considering coercion—I use that word automatically because that is the language we use now—is much more appropriate than “encouragement”, which is slightly archaic, to be honest. Perhaps we need to look at the Suicide Act as well—although not in this parliamentary term; that is for the second term. [Laughter.] I have nothing further to add.

[Juliet Campbell]

I rise to speak to amendments 113 to 115 and 118 to 121, which would require steps to be taken to establish that a person seeking assistance has not been manipulated by another person.

The amendments would require the co-ordinating doctor to ascertain whether, in their opinion, the person has been manipulated, and would account for additional ways that a person can be influenced by another person into choosing an assisted death. Pressure and coercion may leave an individual feeling that they have no choice but to take that path; however, manipulation can make the person think that they made the choice themselves. Coercion is an overt and clear means of controlling someone, whereas manipulation is a hidden, psychological and deceptive means of control.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

We are all in this together. We all want the safest Bill possible, so we should defer to the legal side to form the safest language. I am not a specialist on this legal subject but we all want the same thing and we are arguing about words on which we perhaps just need to take advice, to make the safest possible Bill.

[Juliet Campbell]

rose—

[Naz Shah]

In response to the intervention of my hon. Friend, we are here to make the Bill as safe as possible, but this is a new thing. When the Bill returns to the House, I have to make a decision on whether to support a new Bill that is of such huge magnitude to our communities and the whole country. This Committee is the only process available to us, and words matter.

I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe. The concept of manipulation, as she set out, is very important. I come back to the issue of abuse, particularly in respect of women. I have never heard the phrase “Fifty Shades of Manipulation”—that is an interesting one—but this happens every day, across society. I encourage people to talk about these words. We, as parliamentarians, benefit from that: we are better people for understanding other experiences, because different people bring different experiences to this conversation. I have certainly learned a lot, and it strengthens the House itself when we speak from positions that we have debated. That is the whole purpose of us being here. I am not concerned by talking about adding language—I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe shares my view—because that is point of us being here in the first place.

[Juliet Campbell]

To reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, I understand that the writers, promoter and sponsors of the Bill want it to be as simple as possible. The thought is that if we make it as simple as possible, there is less room for confusion and misinterpretation, but there are times when we can make things so simple that we allow far too much interpretation. Words such as those that the hon. Member for Reigate wants to be put into the Bill are really important. Manipulation is really important. Coercion and pressure are not measures of every type of controlling behaviour that happens to individuals.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am very supportive of the sentiment behind my hon. Friend’s amendments, and she is making some really good points. Again, the question is about the simplicity of the language that goes in the Bill. The CPS guidelines on coercion and coercive control includes behaviour that is

“highly manipulative such as: ‘love bombing’ where the suspect will intermittently do what appears to be loving acts, seeking to present these as interrupting or negating the course of conduct”,

so there is language in there about manipulation. I hope that provides some reassurance that manipulation is seen to be part of the broader concepts of coercion and coercive control in the eyes of the law.

[Juliet Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for looking that up so swiftly. I still think that those additional words need to be included in the Bill. “Coercion” and “pressure” are used as a catch-all for manipulation, but the Bill does not allow people who are using it in their everyday life—doctors, clinicians, nurses and social workers—to understand that.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous with her time. To come back to the CPS’s terminology, does she agree that, in an ideal situation, the Bill would be so safe that we would not need to look at that CPS definition? The Bill would be so tightly defined that nobody could be prosecuted for coercing somebody into taking the option of assisted death.

[Juliet Campbell]

I absolutely agree that we do not want people not to understand what the Bill allows them to do or not do. We spoke earlier about making the Bill simple enough for professionals to understand so that they know how to deal with particular instances, but it is not here to make life easy for professionals; it is here to ensure that anyone who is vulnerable—anyone who has six months to live, or for whatever other reason—is protected.

A continuous theme of our debates and all our conversations is that we must make safeguarding as tight as possible so that people are protected. I believe it is not too much to ask to include those additional words to ensure that the wording is as tight as possible and protects the people who need our protection every single day.

[Danny Kruger]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady. May I say how much I agree with what she has been saying and the purpose of her amendments, which I will be supporting if we get the chance, as I will the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate?

I do not want to repeat what I said yesterday, but my general point is that we make decisions in a context. We are directly influenced by the people around us. I want to highlight the very powerful phrase that my hon. Friend used. She said that love can shroud decision making, and the influence and pressure that is applied to us can be shrouded in love.

Professor House, who gave evidence to us, talked about the enmeshment of people’s decision making with the influence of their loved ones and people around them. The fact is—hon. Members have made this point—that power dynamics in families are complicated, and where there is an imbalance of power, there is risk. The Bill implicitly acknowledges that through the safeguards that it attempts to create, but I do not think they are strong enough.

I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire is concerned that strengthening the Bill in this way will create an opposite risk, which is that a family member who was behaving perfectly properly could somehow be dragged into a prosecution, or that the application would be denied on the basis of a reasonable conversation that had taken place between loved ones—“My darling, do you think I should do this?” It is a lovely fictional conversation, a sweet exchange between a loving couple, but saying to somebody that you agree with the decision they have made and that you would support it, or that you are content with it or understand it, is not the same as undue influence—it is not even the same as encouragement. It is similar to the debate we will be having in due course about the role of the doctor making an overt suggestion of an assisted death, rather than consenting to a suggestion that has been made by the patient.

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

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I will try to make some progress. I want to move on to the other point I want to address, which is around bogging down the whole process with layer upon layer of bureaucracy. We are talking about a relatively small group of patients who are in the last six months of life and are then battling against the system that is meant to be helping them. If we put in layer upon layer and hurdle upon hurdle, it will become a much more difficult system for people to navigate. That does not mean that it would be a less robust system, but it would be a more difficult system. We are trying to make life easier, not harder, for those patients. This comes back to the central point that Professor Whitty made in his evidence about overcomplicating Bills: we overcomplicate Bills out of good intentions, but rarely make the safeguards more robust—in truth, we make them less safe.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Go on—I am feeling generous.

[Juliet Campbell]

I want to go back to the point about making the Bill more complicated by putting layer upon layer on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West spoke about health inequalities and how not everyone is given the same advice to the same level. If we were to introduce a palliative care specialist we would guarantee that everybody was given the same advice and information. We could therefore help reduce the health inequalities and inequalities of access to information that we know exist in our healthcare system.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Member makes a valid point. The reality is that, regardless of specialty title, there will be individuals who are better placed to have certain conversations and discuss certain issues than others. I look back at my own clinical practice: some colleagues would have had a better bedside manner than others, for example. I do not think this comes down to the name of the specialty; it comes down to the underpinning skills and knowledge. That is the point I am trying to make.

We can get bogged down by saying, “Everybody has to see a palliative care specialist”. Of course, that is open to people: if they wish to have a referral to a palliative care specialist, they can see one. However, as the hon. Member for Stroud said, some people may not want that. We cannot be removing the autonomy of patients when their decision-making process is that they choose not to engage with that. They may want to speak to their GP because they have had a relationship with them over 30 or 40 years and have the patient-doctor relationship that is so important when dealing with these important discussions. Perhaps they would feel less comfortable having that discussion with a clinician they had just met for the very first time.

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

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful, Mr Dowd. I recognise the force of what the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge is saying. To be clear, the amendments that I am supporting would not deny disabled people any of the other rights that are being awarded in the Bill. She is absolutely right that a disabled person with a terminal illness would qualify just as much as someone who was not disabled. That is absolutely right.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that people whose illness is a direct consequence of a mental disorder in particular would not be eligible. The reference to disability is because of the confusion, which I expect the hon. Member for Spen Valley recognises in current law and guidance, about where the distinction between disability and terminal illness lies. That is our concern. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that people would not be deemed as eligible for an assisted death in consequence of disability or mental illness. I know that is what the hon. Lady is trying to do with the amendment, and with the clause that it amends, so we are on the same page. Our concern is that, by including the words “For the avoidance of doubt” and the word “only”, we will be leaving quite a large loophole, through which, I am afraid to say, some vulnerable people might fall.

I look forward to the Division on the amendments. We have not been able to discuss them all in close detail, but I am grateful to Members for the debate that we have had.

Amendment 399 agreed to.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 123, in clause 2, page 1, line 23, leave out “an inevitably” and insert “a typically”.

This amendment changes the definition of what it is to be terminally ill from having an “inevitably” to a “typically” progressive illness, disease or medical condition that cannot be reversed by treatment.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 1, line 24, after “reversed” insert

“or the progress controlled or substantially slowed”.

This amendment would mean that illness, disease or medical condition etc, the progress of which can be managed or controlled by treatment are not characterised as terminal illness.

Amendment 48, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out

“can reasonably be expected within 6 months”

and insert

“is expected with reasonable certainty within 6 months, even if the person were to undergo all recommended treatment”.

Amendment 282, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out

“reasonably be expected within 6 months”

and insert

“be expected with reasonable certainty within one month, even if the person were to undergo all recommended treatment.”

This amendment would restrict the scope of assisted dying to people who, with reasonable certainty, would die within one month, even if they were to undergo all recommended treatment.

Amendment 51, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out from “expected” to end.

This amendment would remove the six-month time requirement for a person to be eligible to request assistance under the Act.

Amendment 234, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out “within 6 months” and insert—

“(i) in the case of a neurodegenerative illness, disease, or medical condition, within 12 months; or

(ii) in the case of any other illness, disease, or medical condition, within 6 months.”

This amendment changes the definition of a terminal illness for the purposes of the Act to include neurodegenerative illnesses, diseases or medical conditions where a person’s death in consequence of such an illness can reasonably be expected within 12 months.

Amendment 10, in clause 2, page 2, line 6, at end insert

“, providing the treatment does not alter the overall prognosis of the condition.”

This amendment, which is linked to Amendment 9, would mean that illness, disease or medical condition etc, the progress of which can be managed or controlled by treatment are not characterised as terminal illness.

Amendment 402, in clause 2, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(2) A person who would not otherwise meet the requirements of subsection (1), shall not be considered to meet those requirements as a result of stopping eating or drinking.”

This amendment means that someone who is not terminally ill within the meaning of subsection (1) cannot bring themselves within that definition by stopping eating or drinking or both.

[Juliet Campbell]

The amendment would change the definition of what it is to be terminally ill, from having an “inevitably” to a “typically” progressive illness, disease or medical condition that cannot be reversed by treatment.

The limits of medicine, and where they manifest in our healthcare system, have been repeatedly discussed and have come up in oral and written evidence. The Bill’s supporters have frequently used the argument that our current medical care is limited to highlight the benefits of assisted dying, by stating that even with the best care available, not everyone can be prevented from experiencing significant suffering as their life comes to an end. However, such an understanding of the limits of medicine is not consistently applied in the Bill. The truth, as is repeatedly corroborated in the written evidence, is that in many cases we simply cannot reasonably know how long a person could survive.

Witnesses have explained that predicting whether someone is inevitably terminal is often not a certainty. Even when a disease is considered advanced or at the end stage, there are variables—such as an individual’s response to a treatment, access to care, new clinical trials, medical intervention, or a person’s overall resistance —that can influence the outcome. When practising medicine, doctors often use terms like prognosis, life expectancy, or expectation, rather than definitive statements on the degree of someone’s terminal prognosis. The variables in prognosis make the amendment necessary.

The term “typically” better acknowledges the limitations of the knowledge of medical practitioners. In written evidence, Dr Chris Paxton, a retired GP of 38 years, says:

“No doctor can accurately predict if a terminally ill patient has six months or more to live. I have seen many patients being told they have only months to live, continuing living many years after their ‘terminal’ diagnosis.”

The concept of a condition being “typically” terminal acknowledges that although a disease usually leads to death, there may be exceptions where individuals survive longer than expected, or even achieve remission.

The process of assisted dying must maintain honesty and transparency with patients who are seeking assisted death. A declaration of certainty is implied by using the word “inevitably”. In her written evidence, Dr Ariel Dempsey, who is currently studying end of life care, says:

“Physician prognostic estimates are variable, optimistic/pessimistic, uncertain, and more often than not, inaccurate. For example, a prognosis of 6 months is required for hospice eligibility in the U.S., yet it is not uncommon for hospice patients to live beyond six months, even without life-prolonging treatment.”

For individuals seeking assisted death, the use of the word “inevitably” can lead to an over-reliance and overconfidence in the judgment of their doctors. If someone believes without question that they will inevitably die within six months, an assisted death may seem like an obvious and minimally life-limiting choice. The problem is that a claim that someone’s death is imminent and inevitable within six months simply may not be true.

Not only does the use of the word “inevitable” risk embedding dishonesty in our law, but it risks doctors who agree to engage in assisted dying and end of life care becoming overburdened with the responsibility of proclaiming an individual’s prognosis. Having considered the circumstances that surround a person’s illness, a doctor can only give a prognosis that is typical and give a typical indication of their life expectancy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Juliet Campbell]

I have almost finished, so I will carry on.

If we give doctors the essentially impossible task of proving that death will inevitability occur in six months, there is a risk of an individual being advised to stop treatment, to accelerate them artificially into a serious or terminal state or speed it up to ensure their eligibility. As medical intervention is so key in the prognosis of a seriously ill patient, it makes no sense to me to use language that is not consistent with real-life medical experiences or reasonably within the scope of medical diagnosis.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I speak in support of amendment 234, which is tabled in my name and seeks to ensure that people suffering from neurodegenerative conditions are not excluded from the dignity and autonomy that the Bill seeks to provide. The amendment would extend the eligibility period for those with neurodegenerative conditions from six months to 12 months—a simple yet crucial change that could alleviate needless suffering and ensure fairness in our approach to end of life care.

The intention of the amendment is to change the law to match that in five of the six Australian states. The wording mirrors that found in those jurisdictions. Conditions that would be affected by the change include motor neurone disease, Huntington’s disease, multiple system atrophy, progressive supranuclear palsy, Parkinson’s and many others. Although Alzheimer’s is a neuro-degenerative condition, those with Alzheimer’s would not be eligible for an assisted death should the amendment pass because they would not have the mental capacity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

Colleagues will be pleased to know that, despite my copious notes, I do not intend to speak for very long, because I believe we have had a very thorough and robust debate on these issues. The Minister makes a valuable point on amendment 402, which I do not think anyone else raised. Coincidentally, it relates to the person in the Public Gallery this morning, whose mum had a horrible form of cancer and had to have her tongue removed. She would have stopped eating or drinking, but it was not a choice; it was an inevitable result of her condition. She would have been excluded from having an assisted death, which I am sure is not the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West.

We have had an excellent debate and covered a lot of ground. I do not intend to add anything more on this group of amendments. I will only say that if we get a move on, we might be able to get through clause 2 before we close at 5 o’clock.

[Juliet Campbell]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 9, in clause 2, page 1, line 24, after “reversed” insert

“or the progress controlled or substantially slowed”.—(Rebecca Paul.)

This amendment would mean that illness, disease or medical condition etc, the progress of which can be managed or controlled by treatment are not characterised as terminal illness.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

Certainly, there are adverse consequences for all sorts of treatments, but putting assisted dying on the table and making it clear that this is an option for the patient can only be done, morally and legally, if the doctor thinks that it may be an appropriate treatment or intervention for the patient. Otherwise, if we are suggesting that the doctor might not think that this is a good thing for the patient to be doing, it is a serious breach of medical ethics for them to suggest it. It is one or the other. Either this a good thing for a doctor to suggest, or it is not.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

A very quick question: does the hon. Member agree that the weight of a doctor’s words weighs heavily on patients?

[Danny Kruger]

I am absolutely sure that is right, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that important point. For anybody, but particularly for the vulnerable and those in distress, as people are towards the end of their life, for those who have had a terrible diagnosis, and for those who feel a burden and recognise that the coming months might not be good for them or their family, of course the statement of this option has an implication—even if it is presented as neutrally as possible. It might well be received as a communication that the doctor is actually trying to say, “You are going to have a terrible death”, but does not want to say it out loud. It could be taken in all sorts of ways by patients.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman is right that people are well aware of this topic, and they would be quickly aware of the option if the Bill became law. Without getting into the question of the bogus polling that claims to demonstrate public support, I would simply observe—[Interruption.] Well, it demonstrates support for something called “assisted dying”, but if we drill into the data and ask people explicitly what they mean, we find that they often mean palliative care. The more that people understand what is proposed in this Bill, the less they like it. Actually, other polling shows that there is a majority against the provisions of this Bill, but let us not banter polling around here. We make the law, and we are not responsive to polls, are we?

There is a challenge about making advance notices, and my strong suggestion is that we do not support amendment 278. I had better leave it there; I think we have all had enough of me—me included.

[Juliet Campbell]

Amendment 124 would prevent a registered medical practitioner from discussing the provision of assistance under the Bill unless it is first raised by the person themselves. This is very similar to another discussion we have had. The reason for my amendment is that the doctor will be suggesting, offering or endorsing assisted dying as a treatment pathway—and that would be new—and the patient may take that as a recommendation or endorsement, which could impede their freedom to autonomously choose assisted death.

Another reason I tabled the amendment is that the Bill risks exacerbating the existing pervasive health inequalities. I am very concerned that biases, both conscious and unconscious, have the potential to significantly impact the treatment pathways offered to people, particularly those who fall under the nine protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010. Medical practitioners have the potential to influence the treatment pathways offered to people, particularly those from those backgrounds, and I therefore see no reason why assisted dying would be offered as a treatment pathway.

I was thinking of the following example. Under maternity services, we also have abortion services. If someone presented themselves to a doctor and said that they were in the early stages of pregnancy, they would not be offered abortion as an option; they would be asked, “Do you want to have your baby at home or at a hospital? Would you like shared care between your GP and the hospital?” They would not be asked, “Would you like an abortion?” because that is not part of the pathway. For that to happen, the person would go to the doctor and say, “I am pregnant and I would not like to have this baby.” It is therefore important that the individual first approaches the doctor or clinician and says, “I am interested in an assisted death” or “I would like an assisted death.” Assisted dying should not be a treatment option, even if it is part of end-of-life care.

The doctor’s position is one of knowledge and expertise that far exceeds that of their patient, and that places them in a position of power and influence over their patient. Given that power imbalance, the doctor’s suggestion seems like a recommendation. If an individual chooses assisted death because it feels like a recommendation, that decision is no longer autonomous.

I will quote a GP, Dr Hannah Denno, who put in some written evidence. She cited her role as a GP as being one that needs her patients to take her words as guidance:

“I believe that in my role as a GP, to make such a suggestion”—

choosing assisted death, for example—

“would put pressure on some patients to accept it. At a time of vulnerability many patients are very sensitive to any suggestions raised by a health care professional.”

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

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree with my hon. Friend on that point. As I stated at the start of my comments, officials have worked with her on new clause 19, which I think goes a long way to clearing up many of the points that have been raised, including hers.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

rose—

[The Chair]

Order. The Minister is in the middle of responding to a particular question. Will Members wait until he has done so before standing up to ask a question on a question, please?

[Stephen Kinnock]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. I have answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley and am happy to take another intervention.

[Juliet Campbell]

Throughout the debate, we have spoken consistently about things that happen normally within medical practice, but the amendment we are discussing would move us away from ordinary practice. Could the Minister explain why we would do that?

[Stephen Kinnock]

As I have set out, officials have looked at amendment 297 and raised a couple of flags or questions about it. One is what we have discussed about the transcript. The other is that it is not clear whether other people should be included in the consultation. I do not think it is so much about departing from common practice as about the questions that the amendment raises. As always, the Government are neutral. The Government trust that if the Committee, in its wisdom, sees fit to pass the amendment, it will be workable, but as things stand it raises a number of questions. That is all I am flagging.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 341, in clause 4, page 2, line 33, leave out from “subsection (3)” to the end of line 36 and insert

“is not required to refer the person to another medical practitioner but must ensure that the person is directed to where they can obtain information and have the preliminary discussion.”—(Rebecca Paul.)

This amendment would provide that a registered medical practitioner who is unable or unwilling to have the preliminary discussion with a person must provide information to the person about where they can have that discussion, but that this need not take the form of a referral.

[Juliet Campbell]

I beg to move amendment 125, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, leave out from start of line to end of line 36 and insert

“who is on the Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners.”

This amendment provides that only a medical practitioner who is on the Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners as provided for in NC7 would have a person referred to them.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 126, in clause 23, page 15, line 5, at end insert—

“(1A) Medical practitioners who wish to provide assistance under this Act must “opt-in” to the Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners under clause (Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners).”

This amendment provides that any medical practitioner who wishes to provide assistance under the Act must have opted in to the Register of Medical practitioners.

New clause 7—Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulation, establish a Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners.

(2) A medical professional may only carry out the role of co-ordinating doctor or independent doctor under this Act may if they are listed on the Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners.

(3) Initial discussions under section 4 may only take place with a registered medical practitioner if they are listed on the Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners.

(4) Regulations made under subsection (1) must provide that the Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners includes all registered practitioners other than those to whom the conditions in subsections (5) and (6) apply.

(5) The condition in this subsection is that only medical practitioners who have completed such training as required by the Secretary of State by regulation must be listed on the Register.

(6) The condition in this subsection is that only medical practitioners who wish to provide assistance under the Act must “opt in” to be listed on the Register.

(7) Regulations under subsection (1) and subsection (5) are subject to the affirmative procedure.

(8) Before making regulations under subsection (1) and subsection (5), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.

(9) Regulations under subsection (5) must be laid within six months of the passing of this Act.

(10) Regulations under subsection (1) must be laid within twelve months of the passing of this Act.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State, by regulation, to create a Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners. Only those who are on the register would be able to hold initial discussions or act as a co-ordinating or independent doctor, or hold initial discussions under section 4 of the Act. Only those who have had training as specified by the Secretary of State in regulations can be on the Register. Registered medical practitioners would only appear on the register if they had “opted in”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Juliet Campbell]

I will speak to amendments 125 and 126, which are linked to new clause 7. Given the discussion we have just had, and given that amendment 341 has been made, I will not push amendment 125 to a vote. Amendment 126, however, provides that any medical practitioner who wishes to provide assistance under the Bill must have opted in to a register or a service for practitioners who are comfortable with providing care related to assisted dying. In other conversations, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has said that the opt-in model is provided within the Bill. The challenge is that it is not explicit in the Bill, and I would like to see it so.

The BMA wrote in its evidence to the Committee:

“The Bill should be based on an ‘opt-in’ model, so that only those doctors who positively choose to participate are able to do so. Doctors who opt in to provide the service should also be able to choose which parts of the service they are willing to provide (e.g. assessing eligibility and/or prescribing for eligible patients)…An opt-in model is not explicit in the Bill…We urge the Committee to make it explicit in the Bill that this is an opt-in arrangement for doctors.”

The BMA says that it wants it explicit in the Bill, and at the moment it is not. The Royal College of General Practitioners aligned with this viewpoint, stating that an explicit opt-in system is completely necessary in the Bill. It is my hope that members of the Committee will support amendment 126, which I intend to push to a vote.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am afraid that I will disappoint the hon. Lady by rising to oppose her amendments, although I understand why she has tabled them.

It was clear from the BMA’s evidence that it opposes the creation of a list of registered providers, which the hon. Lady proposes to create with these amendments. The BMA’s opposition and my opposition are based on two or three—

[Juliet Campbell]

Based on the fact that we agreed on amendment 341, I am prepared not to press amendment 125 to a vote. It is amendment 126 that I am proposing.

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand that, but amendment 126 also refers to a register of appropriate medical practitioners being maintained. Of course, new clause 7 would similarly create such a list. We are debating all three proposals, so I wanted to explain why I oppose them, as indeed the BMA does.

As has been outlined in previous speeches, the Bill creates an opt-in model effectively, whereby people who want to be the co-ordinating doctor or indeed the second doctor have to opt in and be trained, and therefore become accredited, so by definition they would be approved for that service.

However, the Bill does not envisage that the initial conversation is necessarily with the co-ordinating doctor. There might well be other medical personnel or practitioners—we have talked a lot about semantics in this debate—who are presented with the situation where a desperate person, somebody who has been given some extremely bad news, wants to talk about their situation and what their options might be. We hope and believe that training will spread throughout the NHS to those who want it. Nevertheless, we have to leave open the option that someone may not be accredited and that they may need to pass on someone, by whatever means the Bill determines, to a doctor who is accredited, who can act as the co-ordinating doctor, who has had the appropriate training and opted in, and I am afraid the register would not allow for that.

The second thing that concerns me slightly, and which we need to avoid for the benefit of both the patient and the system, is any kind of “doctor shopping”—the notion that there is a list of doctors that I can shop around and choose from. I worry slightly about that.

My hope is that these types of conversations, which are necessarily private and sensitive, will take place in an environment of embrace and familiarity between doctor and patient. We have talked a bit about whether doctors have to refer or provide information—obviously, we have just accepted an amendment that seeks to set out how that will work. What I would oppose, for two reasons, is the creation of a list that people can move up and down on, and pick somebody they like the look of, or who they think might be handy for them. First, I am not sure that it would be entirely reputable; secondly, we have to remember who we are dealing with here. These are dying people who may not have long left to live—we are talking about six months as a minimum, but actually they might have only two or three months to go. We need to create a sense that this is something that will be provided to them in an environment that is familiar. They will not have to spend their time finding a doctor on a list, and their phone number, then ringing up their office and saying, “This is what I want to do. Can I make an appointment?” There is a privacy aspect to it.

My third objection is, to be honest, about privacy—not just that of the patient, but that of the doctor. The hon. Lady will know that unfortunately—I do not know whether she thinks it is unfortunate, but I do—there are some people who object so strongly, for example, to abortion that they are willing to go and protest outside clinics that provide that service. This House has legislated to balance the rights of those who want to avail themselves of that service and those who want to protest. That has been a source of conflict.

I am afraid that a public list of doctors who provide this service would raise questions about the privacy of doctors, about patient privacy and about access to that service. I am concerned about it from that point of view.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

For clarity, amendment 125 is not being pressed to a Division, as I understand it. If the hon. Member for Broxtowe withdraws amendment 125, there will be an opportunity to vote on amendment 126 and new clause 7 later.

[Juliet Campbell]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 288, in clause 4, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

“(6) All efforts to dissuade the person from ending their own life must be recorded in the clinical records and subsequently made available to the medical examiner.”—(Sean Woodcock.)

This amendment would require the coordinating doctor to record efforts to dissuade the person from taking their own life and subsequently make this available to the medical examiner.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

I will speak to amendment 127, which is a probing amendment. I will not press it to a vote, but the reason I tabled it is that I felt that the phrase “as soon as reasonably practicable” was a little vague. I was taking into consideration the fact that we often talk about people who have six months to live, who are eligible for the assisted death, but sometimes people learn later on and do not have six months. If people are thinking about having an assisted death, there might be some pace at which the doctors need to work together—the co-ordinating doctor and whoever else they speak to.

I put 10 days, because I needed to put something down, and that is why I am saying amendment 127 is probing, but I do think that we need to be a little tighter with the timeframe in which we enable doctors to speak to each other, so that the patient is aware of what is happening. Also, if the patient wants to change their mind and is speaking to another doctor, they would know what timeframe they have got. The amendment is probing, and I will not press it to a vote.

[Rebecca Paul]

I think most points have been covered, so I will be brief. The point of the amendment 296 is to recognise the challenges faced by medical practitioners in the NHS. It is really well intended. I suspect that there are different ways to do this, which we could discuss, but the amendment would recognise that medical practitioners will come under a lot of pressure.

The very nature of the assisted dying process means there is pressure to move quickly—for obvious reasons. If someone is in pain and an assisted death is what they have chosen to do, they are going to want to move forward at pace. It cannot be as usual, with however long it can take in the NHS—often for a normal procedure. The point of the amendment is simply to be cognisant of the fact that other patients, too, require healthcare. This comes back to the debate we have had many times about what is healthcare and what is not. It is one of the issues that comes up when we have assisted dying amalgamated with general healthcare in the NHS.

We are hearing concerns from doctors on the frontline. In written evidence, eight doctors, six of them GPs, say that the NHS lacks both the time and the capacity to create the new role of co-ordinating doctor with its grave responsibilities. The statistics bear out their concerns. In a 2024 survey by the Royal College of General Practitioners, over 40% of UK GPs who responded said that they were “unlikely” to be practising still in five years’ time; 40% feel stressed to the point of “not coping” at least once a week; and 79% are concerned about having fewer GPs at their practice and its impact on the quality of care that their practice can deliver. The reality of the matter is that we have to recognise that the introduction of assisted dying places another pressure on our health system, and to try to address that head on.

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

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Opher]

Actually no, I will not. I will go on, if that is okay.

Amendment 459 states that the second-opinion doctor “must produce a report” outlining their reasons for reaching a different opinion, but the whole nature of this is that the doctor is independent. As we have heard, if it is suggested that someone either is or is not allowed to get an assisted death, that might affect the assessment of the independent doctor. It would not be good medical practice to have that assessment in front of the independent doctor—that would lead to poor assessments. We need a right to a second opinion and we should have a truly independent doctor.

Amendment 460, which is the last in the group, would allow a patient only one declaration in any part of their lives, even if circumstances change. Although there will be vanishingly few instances where that would be relevant, I do not feel that such a provision would make the Bill any fairer or safer.

Amendment 143, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, would allow a second and a third opinion. It is my opinion, and the opinion of many of us, that we do not want doctor shopping. We want to allow one second opinion from an independent doctor, but not more than that.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

Amendment 143 has been withdrawn.

[Dr Opher]

Has it? Okay. I thank my hon. Friend.

The amendments in this group all come from a good place, and I understand where hon. Members are coming from, but I do not feel that anything in them would make the Bill any safer or fairer for patients.

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

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Member makes an important point. In practice, one would of course discuss the side-effect profile of any medication or substance to be administered. I do not feel that specifying that in the Bill, as amendment 305 is drafted, would achieve its purpose. The amendment refers to “any other effects”, but it does not specifically mention side effects. In any event, it must flow from the interaction between clause 9(2)(b)(iv) and clause 9(2)(c) that the conversation about complications as a result of the administration of a substance will encompass a conversation about side effects.

It is worth noting that all substances have a side-effect profile; what the side effects are will be specific to the substance in question. I do not think it a helpful improvement to the Bill to presuppose what the side effects may be. Amendment 305, although imperfect, is therefore preferable in my view to amendment 362, which would require that specific side effects be set out and which presupposes a scenario involving a particular set of medication.

Nevertheless, I remain concerned about the wording of amendment 305. I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Spen Valley provided some reassurances as to the steps she has taken to honour the intention of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central and achieve a tighter piece of legislative drafting.

I turn to amendment 142, tabled by the hon. Member for Broxtowe. It seeks to ensure that the discussion with the assessing doctor includes a discussion of how the substance will be administered. Although it may not be strictly necessary, because that should be a conversation that takes place when someone is going through an informed consent process, I do not consider that its inclusion would undermine the operability of the Bill. I am therefore minded to support the amendment. I do not consider that it will be restrictive should the circumstances change, because there may be a broad conversation about the variety of substances that can be administered, depending on the circumstances. As the drafting of the Bill does not preclude or prohibit such a wider discussion, it would be eminently sensible to include the route of administration.

Amendment 306, in the name of the hon. Member for York Central, would require the assessing doctor to include the escalation of medical intervention in their discussion should complications arise. In many ways, that issue is covered by clause 9(2)(c), so the amendment would not aid the operability or interpretation of the Bill. It would be much better dealt with under the code of conduct, to avoid the Bill becoming overly prescriptive and to allow flexibility as scientific and medical knowledge adjusts and adapts over time.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

I will speak to amendment 142, which would insert

“and how it will be administered”

into the Bill. It would require the assessing doctor to explain and discuss with the person how the substance that might be provided to assist them to end their life will be administered.

The amendment would be a key step towards giving peace of mind to a terminally ill individual who is seeking an assisted death. It would also preserve their autonomy right up to the final stage. Ensuring that the method of administration is thoroughly explained would provide the doctors and the individual seeking an assisted death with the opportunity to consider the options—if there are options available to them—and decide which method would best preserve the autonomy of that individual.

Assisted dying presents many opportunities for individuals to be coerced, especially at the final stage—death itself. Therefore, the method of administration is key information for the individual to know, and it is not sufficient for it to be withheld from them. We must make it a prerequisite of the Bill that it is supplied. Making an informed choice about the assisted death pathway involves careful consideration, and knowing and understanding every step of the process. It is appropriate for the person to maintain their agency. Minimising the role played by the doctor at the administration stage is also key to ensure that the final act belongs to that individual.

We must acknowledge that many individuals seeking assisted death may experience significant mobility and physical limitations, particularly because of their terminal illness. Those limitations can affect their ability to engage with the process in ways other people may take for granted. For example, a patient suffering from severe weakness, paralysis or chronic pain might have difficulty physically positioning themselves or administering some types of substance, depending on the options available. A person may have difficulty swallowing and would not be able to ingest a substance in the form of a pill, but they may be able to autonomously operate a system that would allow them intravenous administration.

In these cases, the method of administration must be carefully considered and explained in a way that accommodates the patient’s unique physical needs. By discussing the challenges openly at this stage, doctors can help to ensure that the patient understands the options open to them, while making the process as comfortable and accessible as possible. Addressing their mobility and physical limitations in this context is not only a matter of practicality, but a reflection of our compassion and respect for that individual’s circumstances.

By limiting the doctor’s physical role, we also ensure that the patient retains control over the process. Making the act of self-administration as independent as possible ensures that the final part of the process gives the patient agency in choosing how and when to end their life. The individual must maintain a primary role in their death, but the actual administration is the final assurance and assertion of the individual’s choice to end their life. The amendment emphasises the importance of ensuring that, within the Bill, the doctor’s involvement is limited to preparation and support. That is key to making sure that the patient’s final moments are self-directed and as free from any unnecessary external interventions as possible.

Subsection 6 of clause 18, on the provision of assistance, discusses the role of the doctor in administration. It says that a doctor might

“assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.”

By ensuring that the method of administration of the substance aligns with the physical capabilities that a person has to self-ingest, which may be limited, we limit the role played by the doctor at this crucial stage, and limit the chance of the coercion of the individual or of the individual having a death that lacks real autonomy.

In conclusion, amendment 142 plays a crucial role in safeguarding the rights and autonomy of a terminally ill individual seeking an assisted death. By ensuring that the method of administration is clearly explained, we empower patients to make an informed, autonomous decision about the way in which they wish to end their life.

[Danny Kruger]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Esther. [Interruption.] You are Dame Esther, aren’t you?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Francis]

I will withdraw amendment 105 later, but will speak to it briefly, as my name is on it. The amendment aims to require court rules to be made that would ensure an adversarial court process, by appointing an advocate to the court. It would also require them to hear from the person seeking assistance to end their life and both assessing doctors, and to consider also hearing from family members and others involved in the person’s care.

In our oral evidence sessions, we heard from Nicholas Mostyn and Alex Ruck Keene about some of the merits of doing so, with reference to the Bill that was before us at that stage. Since then, a significant number of amendments and new clauses have been tabled, so I will not press this amendment to a vote, given the other amendments now before the Committee.

[Juliet Campbell]

I rise to speak to amendments 407 and 410. Amendment 407 would leave out the word “may” and insert the word “must”, and would require the High Court to hear from and question all persons who made the application for a declaration. It is a probing amendment, which aims to question the guidelines for the judge to question and hear from some people and not all people. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I seek clarity on what the criteria would be for the judge to question some people and not others.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I hope I can provide some reassurance. This issue is covered by my new clause 21. The amendment, I think, asks why the High Court would not have heard from the patient. My new clause would ensure that the panel—as it potentially would be—will hear from the patient.

[Juliet Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that explanation.

I move on to amendment 410, which would remove the ability of the court to hear from and question any person other than the person who made the application or the declaration for an assisted death and the assessing doctors. I have strong reservations about using a proxy or giving another person the right to speak on behalf of an individual who wishes to have an assisted death, and I question the scope of those people who could be the proxy to speak on behalf of a person requesting an assisted death. Who exactly would those people be?

One of the arguments we have consistently debated in this Committee is around coercion and patient autonomy. When multiple third parties such as family members or caregivers are allowed to testify, there is an increased risk that an individual might influence the court’s decision in a way that is not aligned to the true wishes of the applicant. In some cases we have talked about pressure from family members or loved ones, for whatever reason—whether their vested interest is financial or something else—to have the applicant hasten their death or have an assisted death. I would not want that kind of pressure to be put on the person and I do not believe any third party should be allowed to speak on their behalf or to be a proxy.

By limiting the scope of the testimony to the applicant and assessing doctors only, the amendment helps to safeguard against such manipulative tactics and ensures that the court focuses solely on the applicant’s own will and the medical assessment of their eligibility, removing the potential for family dynamics or any other outside influence to interfere with the judicial review. It offers a necessary refinement to the Bill for assisted deaths, a request that is both efficient and respectful of the autonomy of all people involved. By limiting the court testimony to the applicant and assessing doctor, the amendment addresses several of the concerns I have spoken about.

[Jake Richards]

I will speak briefly, because many of these issues and themes will be debated in clause stand part and amendments 371 and the others from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. Amendment 267 was not moved, but I would have opposed it in any event, on the basis that the discretion given there was way too wide and I did not understand the basis of the amendment in any way. Amendments 105 to 107, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), attempt to add an adversarial element to proceedings. Again, I will not comment too much because that issue comes back in the fourth grouping under this clause.

I turn briefly to amendment 410, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe just spoke. My understanding is that, although this relates to the High Court—which may be deemed redundant as we move on through this clause—the amendment aims to limit the people that the judge or panel can hear from. In my view that would be wrong and dangerous. The purpose of a judge or a panel is to explore the circumstances in this matter. That must mean that they have discretion to hear from others as well. In my view, this amendment, if passed, would significantly limit the safeguards and be quite dangerous.

As my hon. Friend has already said, amendment 407 has been superseded, and I think we all agree on that.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. As I and my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg have made clear throughout the debate, the Government continue to remain neutral on this Bill and do not take a position on assisted dying. My remarks will therefore focus on the legal and practical impact of the amendments, to assist the members of this Committee in undertaking line-by-line scrutiny.

Amendments 267 and 105 to107, which have now been withdrawn, deal with the Bill as currently drafted in relation to the High Court. Clause 12 as currently drafted would require the High Court to make a declaration that the requirements of the Bill have been met, following a person’s first declaration to receive assistance to end their own life, with statements from a co-ordinating doctor and an independent doctor. The amendments relate to how the High Court will declare itself satisfied that a person has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life and that they have not been coerced or pressured.

Briefly, amendments 407 and 410 seek to change who the High Court—as others have said, we might come on to debate some of these themes relation to the panel—would engage with when considering applications for assistance under the Bill. In determining whether the person has a clear, settled, and informed wish to end their life and that they have not been coerced or pressured, the High Court would be required to hear from and question the person seeking assistance, as opposed to having the option to do so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley pointed out, in the later provision in relation to the panel, that has now become a requirement.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe made clear, under her amendment 410 the High Court would lose the ability to hear from or indeed question any other party other than the person seeking assistance and the assessing doctors. Removing the ability—whether of the High Court or, as we may come on to debate, of the panel—to hear from and question any other party may limit that body or court’s ability to interrogate wider evidence or points of view.

[Juliet Campbell]

The probe that I have on that point is that the individual who is seeking the assisted death, and the doctors who have been working with that person, really have all the information. I am trying to ascertain, if we are not going to agree on this amendment, who else they would be seeking information from. Is there a risk if they are getting evidence from family members or other people, or having them give evidence or speak on behalf of that declaration?

[Sarah Sackman]

As I understand it, both in the context of the High Court—which has the ability to speak to whomever it likes—and of the panel, when we come to debate its role, that is a discretion. It is a requirement to hear from the person seeking an assisted death; it is a requirement to hear from the co-ordinating doctor. However, hearing from others is discretionary, which means that, if it is necessary in order to be satisfied that the eligibility criteria are met—which is what the scheme requires—in that context, under the panel’s or the High Court’s discretion, it may seek evidence from elsewhere. That is what the provision, as the Government reads it, is designed to do.

The amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe puts forward clearly limits that discretion; whether that is desirable is a policy choice, but that is how it is intended to function. As I have said, the Government will continue to remain neutral on these substantive policy questions, but I hope that is useful to members of the Committee.