Vascular Sector Reform

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate.

The publication of the 2026 cardiovascular disease modern service framework is a welcome step towards realising our commitment to a more preventative, community-focused health service. It rightly seeks to move care away from expensive and reactive hospital treatment towards earlier diagnosis and joined-up cardiovascular care in our communities. As we consider the future of vascular services, we should take this opportunity to go further and give attention to heart failure, where many of these conditions end. Heart failure places a significant burden on patients, families and the NHS. It affects more than 1 million people in the UK, and is the most common cause of hospital admissions among those over 65. The number of people living with heart failure is set to double by 2040.

Early intervention on a cardiovascular journey can do more than treat established diseases and the associated life-changing impacts that the hon. Member spoke about; it can also prevent more people from reaching heart failure. Evidence-based treatment can relieve symptoms, extend life and reduce hospital admissions, but patients can benefit only if the condition is recognised, diagnosed and treated without delay.

In my constituency, in towns such as Eastwood and areas such as Inham Nook, rates of heart failure are more than double the national average. People there are four times more likely to die from heart failure than those elsewhere. Access to diagnosis and specialist care varies from area to area, but no one’s postcode should determine how quickly they are diagnosed, when they see a specialist or when they receive treatment that could keep them well and out of hospital. The modern service framework must establish consistent national standards, with targeted support for deprived, rural and high-risk communities.

More than 1 million people are living with heart failure in the UK, with around 200,000 diagnosed each year. In England, 80% of diagnoses are made in hospital, despite 40% of the patients having previously experienced symptoms. That clearly demonstrates the urgent need to move from crisis-driven care to early diagnosis and planned treatment.

The modern service framework acknowledges that NHS health checks do not include the NT-proBNP blood test, which identifies whether the walls of the heart are stretched or there is a pressure overload on the heart. Although the framework proposes new testing models, valuable opportunities for early diagnosis such as that test can be missed. Heart failure must be explicitly mentioned in the modern service framework, and supporting measures must be clear, funded and measurable.

We also need stronger links between primary care, community services, hospitals and specialist centres. Those pathways need to be supported by a specialist workforce, as reform cannot simply mean reorganising structures. We need diagnostic capacity, specialist staff and community services; otherwise, pressure will just move from one part of the NHS to another.

I ask the Minister to make heart failure an explicit and measurable national priority within the modern service framework. That should include guaranteed access to testing, diagnosis, evidence-based treatment and multidisciplinary heart failure care, supported by investment in specialist staff, increased diagnostic capacity and community services. I hope the Minister will ensure that he goes further than considering reform of the vascular services and makes heart failure a national priority.

NHS Breast Screening

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for her thoughtful opening remarks. I pay tribute to all those affected by breast cancer, those facing diagnosis, and their families, friends and carers who stand beside them. It is their experiences that make this debate so important. I also pay tribute to my constituents for signing this petition, and I thank the petitioner for starting it in the first place.

I welcome the Government’s ambition for the national cancer plan, which commits the NHS to ensuring that, by 2035, 75% of people diagnosed with cancer will be cancer-free and living well five years after diagnosis. The plan will also develop further AI-assisted interpretation of images for suspected breast cancer diagnosis, and it will help us to detect breast cancer in women under 50 with denser breast tissue.

Under the last Government, cancer performance targets had not been met since 2014, leaving too many women facing delays and poor health outcomes. However, I know that my constituents want this Government to go further and to include women aged 40 in routine invitations for breast cancer screening. According to CoppaFeel!, cases of breast cancer in under-50s are on the rise. A recent report states that we have seen a 5% increase in the last year. Patients under 50 are more likely to have their symptoms missed and to be diagnosed at a later stage in their cancer journey compared with those over 50.

That issue is even more pronounced for women from minority and ethnic backgrounds and for those from deprived and rural areas, who have less access to screening opportunities in their communities. Additional public health attention needs to be paid to that. According to Breast Cancer Research, those groups are 10% more likely to begin treatment after the cancer has already become invasive and 20% more likely to require a mastectomy.

To achieve our cancer outcome aspirations, I ask the Minister to extend routine mammogram invitations to women from the age of 40. I hope she will also consider the roll-out of alternative diagnostic measures that will affect the diagnosis of younger women.

Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

I pay tribute and give my admiration to the families who have fought so hard and who have been so strong at this time in their lives, when they have had to repeat what they have been through over and over again. Their fight for justice and accountability is truly fought. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), who has not stopped this fight and has continued the story, and I commend her for everything that she has done.

The findings of the Donna Ockenden review are harrowing. It is indefensible that babies, mothers, fathers and families in my constituency have suffered injury, death and lasting trauma under the care of the NHS. The Ockenden review has made it clear that mothers’ voices were not listened to and that families were not treated with the dignity, respect and compassion that they not only deserve but is expected from our NHS. The indifference that people have shown to families is indefensible. The public listening to the debate at home will understandably be wondering how we are here again and asking when things will change. I say to the Secretary of State: let us not treat these recommendations as just another set of recommendations to put on the shelf, but let us look at them as a catalyst for change and improvement, making sure that inequalities are addressed. Will the Secretary of State outline what immediate steps the Government will be taking on the most urgent recommendations in the review, and set out how they will be monitored and reviewed?

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about the role of the families in fighting for justice. She is absolutely right that the recommendations of the Ockenden report, Baroness Amos’s report, which is due shortly, and other reviews and inquiries into maternity services must not simply end up on the shelf gathering dust. That is why the process that I have spoken about today, whereby the national taskforce that I chair will produce a comprehensive action plan by the end of the year, is so important. That will give us the right forum to develop a plan across all aspects and from all angles on this horrific scandal, including the inequalities faced by different families from different backgrounds that my hon. Friend alluded to. I agree with her wholeheartedly that this moment and this process that we are now going into must be a catalyst for change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

We are putting £26 billion more into the NHS this year, which is investment that was opposed by the Conservative party.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dyslexia—an issue on which I have campaigned for many years—I remain alarmed at the high number of dyslexic people who still need to use mental health services. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can better serve dyslexic people in Broxtowe and across the UK, and will he consider measures to prevent more dyslexic people from needing mental health services?

[Dr Ahmed]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing her personal experiences, and I would be delighted to meet her.

Baby Loss

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing the debate. It coincides with Baby Loss Awareness Week, a time when we pause to remember every baby who has been lost far too soon. The week provides us with a chance to take stock of this sensitive issue and to commit to supporting family members, including fathers and siblings, by improving services for all families affected by baby loss.

In 2023, there were more than 4,000 baby deaths in the UK, behind each of which is a family whose lives will never be the same again. The pain that those families experience is the same as the pain of losing any child, and they deserve to be treated with the same sensitivity as with any other bereavement. Although we have made significant progress over the past few decades, the rate of baby deaths remains too high, and disproportionately so in African, Caribbean and Asian families and those from deprived backgrounds. That inequality is a challenge that our society, our NHS and our Government must address urgently. Our NHS maternity and neonatal services must have proper funding and training to provide care and support through a service provision that recognises the medical, social and emotional needs of those families. It also means ensuring that staff have the support to offer a service with empathy and compassion, and to understand that baby loss has a profound impact on all members of the family. Every parent experiencing miscarriage, stillbirth or neonatal loss deserves a safe space where they can grieve with dignity.

Finally, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Forever Stars, a charity based in my Broxtowe constituency founded by Michelle and Richard Daniels, who have lived experience of baby loss. Their strength and dedication to families who have experienced baby loss has flourished into an organisation that provides understanding and comfort to hundreds of families across Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, but that should not have been left to a grieving family. The creation of baby loss services, memorial gardens and specialist bereavement spaces should be a standard part of our health and social care service. I therefore call upon the Government to see this as an opportunity to design and develop improved services for families who experience baby loss.

Rare Cancers Bill

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 14th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing the Bill. Many of my constituents have shared with me their experiences of rare cancer, and the experiences of their families and friends. Rare cancers make up almost half of cancer diagnoses, so the Bill is very much welcome.

A constituent wrote to me recently about their seven-year-old son, who was diagnosed with medulloblastoma, a rare form of brain cancer. Sadly, their son did not survive, despite that cancer having a 75% survival rate. Medulloblastoma is on a spectrum of high to low risk, which further complicates ability to predict the outcome of treatment. I am here to represent that child, their family and other families affected by rare cancers. I welcome the increase in research, funding and support for early detection and diagnosis. I welcome the introduction of the Bill and wholeheartedly support it.

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.

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

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

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 (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.