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

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

Okay. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

We have received significant written and oral evidence on how common it is, sadly, that vulnerable people experience this sort of subtle coercion—the undue influence from which we all want to ensure that people are protected. The lawyer Tamasin Perkins was referenced earlier, but not fully quoted. She is a private wealth disputes partner, so deals with a lot of complexities around people’s deaths. She has said:

“Coercion can be very difficult to spot as a legal professional (and for medical professionals too)…the real influence occurs behind closed doors.”

She went on to talk about

“frailty and vulnerability…a too close involvement in the decision-making process, or a sudden and inexplicable change of heart.”

All that is often teased out only through the course of the quite in-depth relationship that a lawyer can form in the course of supporting somebody to settle their financial affairs. That is not what is proposed in the Bill. The law firm Scott Bailey has made the point that

“sadly, we all too often speak to individuals who do not realise they are victims until they talk to us about their relationship”.

While the Bill correctly seeks to protect people from direct coercion, indirect coercion is much harder to spot, as is the coercion that people apply to themselves, which we will come to in the next group of amendments. I recognise that the Committee and the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Spen Valley, have taken pains to ensure that we prevent coercion. I put on the record my support for the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) about the importance of providing training to all the professionals involved with coercive control, but I am not sure that training will be sufficient. It is important to insist that doctors who assess such applications are required to look directly for these particular forms of influence.

Let me explain our concerns as crisply as I can. At the moment, encouraging suicide will remain illegal under the Bill. That is an important principle. Clause 24 specifies that to assist someone to die according to the processes of the scheme set out in the Bill will not be treated as assisting suicide. The implication is that encouraging assisted suicide remains illegal. To the point made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, if we are worried that there might be a chilling effect due to the concept of encouragement still being illegal, logically the Committee should amend clause 24 to explicitly allow encouragement in order to prevent such a chilling effect. Either encouragement is okay, and we allow it as a concept, or we do not.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Forgive me, but I think my hon. Friend might have misunderstood me. My point was that the more we attempt to police discussions in families, the more guarded they will become; it was not necessarily that we should specifically authorise encouragement, or whatever he has suggested. He referred a moment ago to professionals being able to have conversations with individuals freely about their circumstances, their thinking, and how they had come to their decision. I am concerned—there are relevant amendments in the next grouping—that families will interpret these words in such a way that they start to talk about things they should not say. They might think, “I’ve got to be very careful not to do this or say that; because of the state of my body and the disease that is ravaging it, I am determined that I want an assisted death, and I am going to make sure that I do not say anything wrong in the discussion.” The more that we police it, the less likely people are to be open and free in their conversations, both within their families and with the professionals we want to assess them.

[Danny Kruger]

I recognise my right hon. Friend’s argument. The fact is that encouraging assisted suicide is theoretically illegal—in fact, it will be illegal under the Bill—so there is already that potential for the policing of conversations. If it is concluded that a family member has encouraged somebody to an assisted suicide, that would be illegal, because that has not been specifically allowed. The law already specifies that it is illegal; we are concerned about ensuring that that is fully checked for in the early conversations that people have with their doctors—that the applicant does not simply have to get over the coercion bar, but that they have to get over this lower but just as important bar around the potential for encouragement and undue influence. If my right hon. Friend is concerned that the concept of encouragement will have a chilling effect on family conversations, he should legislate accordingly, so as to prevent it from being used at the later, criminal stage.

[Kit Malthouse]

We need to think about this in practical terms. If the word “encouraged” is included in the Bill, a co-ordinating doctor may feel that it is their duty to say to somebody, “Has anybody encouraged you to take this decision?” They will use that specific word, rather than have a general conversation that is designed to detect coercion, which, as has been pointed out, covers the concept of encouragement or undue influence.

My hon. Friend may think that that point is semantic, but we have to remember that the words will be interpreted relatively literally, certainly in the early stages after the passage of this legislation. To ensure that they are within the bounds of the law, a doctor may feel that they have specifically to say, “Have you been encouraged to do this?” That will then start to be interpreted by families in the way that they respond. What we really want is instead a general discussion, which is where, in my experience, professionals are expert at teasing out the understanding and motivation of individuals.

[Danny Kruger]

If my right hon. Friend just wants a free and easy, free-flowing discussion that has no specific questions that need to be asked or answered, there should not be any requirement for them to be testing for coercion. There is already a requirement to ensure that there has been no coercion and that the person is making the decision voluntarily. That imposes an expectation that they would be asking a specific question to the applicant. Personally, I think it is appropriate to ask the applicant, “Have you been encouraged? Has influence been put upon you?” If the answer is, “No, it’s all fine; my wife agrees with me, but I have not been encouraged to it,” then the test is passed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

The issue for us in the conversation on this amendment is that we have talked about coercion, undue pressure, undue influence, encouragement and all that, but we have not talked about the benefit to others. It is simply a different conversation; it is about understanding that a person has been coerced and so on, but also for what reason. What is the benefit to others? That is my understanding of the amendment, and that is why I am speaking to and supporting it.

Unfortunately, the Bill as it stands does not have all the necessary safeguards for all those who see themselves as burdens to others, and that is why I support the amendment.

[Kit Malthouse]

I have listened very carefully to the hon. Member, who represents the fine town of Bradford, and to her personal experiences, which have coloured her view. I understand that of which she speaks, and she might be interested to know that I was the author of the first ever violence against women and girls strategy in the country when I was at City Hall. I dealt closely with harmful cultural practices in that strategy, so I do understand the difficulties she elaborated with detecting and combating the influences to which she referred. However, I am going to disappoint her, because I am going to explain why I believe that the amendments make that more difficult and run the risk of making the Bill less safe.

I should mention first, though, that she said that we are dealing with notions of autonomy and trying to achieve a position where people seeking an assisted death do so as a matter of free choice, and she is exactly right: that is what we are all about and trying to achieve. However, as I hope I can illustrate, the amendments may make that more difficult on three levels.

We have talked a lot over the last few hours about precision and novel terms in legality. My first issue with the amendments is the lack of that precision. For example, what does “physical pain” mean? Is it all pain? Is it something as minor as a headache? Is it perceived or actual pain? Is it fear? Does fear become a physical pain, or is it a mental pain?

In the closing stages of bowel cancer, for example, a number of things may happen and a number of things may cause somebody to die. They can have a perforated bowel caused largely by a blockage, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley would say. That would be incredibly painful and lead to peritonitis and organ failure, which eventually leads to death. However, there is a situation where a blockage in the bowel causes a person to vomit effectively semi-digested food and faeces. Is that painful? I do not know whether that is a classification of physical pain. It is certainly uncomfortable and unpleasant, but is it actually painful? I find that the definition of “physical pain”, undefined as it is, and which may be a matter of degree, injects complexity for doctors and lawyers in their assessment of the motivation of a person seeking assisted dying.

Similarly, I do not really know what “benefit” means in the amendments dealing with that. Does it mean financial benefit? Does it mean emotional benefit? Is it perceived or real benefit? Does the doctor have to assess whether a third party is actually getting benefit? Let us assume that it is emotional benefit and that I say—I think it is perfectly legitimate, as my hon. Friend said, for me to say this—“I do not wish my child to witness, know or even learn that the way I died was from the fungating tumours in my neck bursting and,” as we heard on Second Reading, “me drowning in my own bodily fluids. I do not want to get to that stage, and I do not want to burden my child with that.” Do I have to say to the child, who is perhaps an adult child, “How do you feel about it? Are you going to benefit from this or not?” They will respond, “Absolutely not. I want my dad to live as long as possible,” or, “I want my dad to have what he wants to have.”

It is very difficult in these circumstances—do not forget that this will be crawled over by lawyers and doctors—to understand what is actually meant by “benefit”. These are new words—novel concepts—that are being introduced into the law. I did look to see whether there were similar circumstances elsewhere in legislation, and I could not find any. To me, they inject an element of complexity into what we hoped would be, as we discussed earlier, a settled and comprehensible legal framework, in which doctors have previously operated, and should operate into the future. As I say, my first objection is that the amendments inject novel concepts that are largely undefined and that may be actual or perceived, both by the person who is being assessed and by those who are presumably to be in receipt of the benefit.

I am afraid there is also—I am not sure, particularly on the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree—a question in my mind about where my “sake”, whatever that word means, collides with someone else’s “benefit”. As the hon. Member for Ipswich said, if it makes me happy—if part of my dying is me taking satisfaction in the fact that I am not burdening my children with the emotional trauma of watching me die in horrible circumstances—is that for my sake or for their benefit?

[Naz Shah]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. In response to the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, people can have, and will have, an incidental benefit when somebody with autonomy makes a decision. The Government could table tidying-up amendments to clarify that and make this amendment stronger, if it gives an extra safeguard for those who are seeking assisted dying, should the Bill become law.

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, but I am afraid that the amendments do not say that. Even if they did, there would be some difficulty, because you are asking for a further level of complexity in what should be, we hope, a decision made between doctor and patient, in private and confidential circumstances where sensitivity is needed and where we are asking medics to tease out motivations from individuals. I hate to use a pejorative word like “woolly”, but I find the lack of precision in the language troubling. I think it will create yet more complexity and jeopardy for doctors and lawyers.

[Tom Gordon]

I just wondered whether the right hon. Member shares my concerns that the amendment would end up in the territory of legislators and parliamentarians almost trying to act as thought police, when we should be respecting the autonomy of people in the decisions they make.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he brings me to my second point, which is exactly that—autonomy. We heard in oral evidence, and it comes through from some of the written evidence, that people’s motivations for seeking an assisted death are often a mixture—a cocktail—of different reasons. Some are about pain, and some are about trauma, for them and for others, but the overarching motivation is always this notion of control. What people seem to be most concerned about is, “If I contemplate my end, I want to have some kind of say, as I get to the end, about what it will be like. That end may be a variety of different outcomes.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley, or any of the doctors in the room, will know, if someone is dying of bowel cancer, any number of things may kill them. Palliative care is able to help with some of them, but not others. In my experience, the notion in people’s minds is that, as they approach that point, they just want the reassurance that they can control it and have the option, if they so wish. That is often their primary motivation. As the hon. Member for Bradford West said, there may be ancillary results and reasons why people want that control, but the primary purpose is control.

[Danny Kruger]

My right hon. Friend says that the primary purpose is control, and that is certainly the argument made by some of the most passionate advocates of this sort of legislation. However, does he recognise that, in the majority of cases, in jurisdictions where this is legal, being a burden is a primary cause for people to seek an assisted death? People request an assisted death explicitly for the purpose of not being a burden on others. If my right hon. Friend is content with that because he respects their autonomy, and he thinks that that is an acceptable reason for people to want to die, that is fine, and let us say so. However, I do not think it is acceptable to hide behind the idea that we are talking about people who simply want to control their own passing. In fact, many want to do this because they are concerned about being a burden on others.

[Kit Malthouse]

I will make two points in response to my hon. Friend. First, I am not sure that it is entirely accurate that burden is the primary purpose. It is certainly the case that when people going through this process in other jurisdictions are surveyed and rank their reasons, burden may be one. We heard that in some of the evidence that we had from overseas, but as I said at the start of my remarks, it depends what we mean by “burden”. Personally, I think it is perfectly legitimate for me to want to spare my children from witnessing, knowing or even learning that I may have died in a particularly unpleasant way. I may therefore wish to go a few weeks before that eventuality and say goodbye to them, gathering them around my deathbed—we heard very movingly about this from one of the witnesses—to say farewell while I still can, before my body is ravaged by the final stages of the disease that is destroying me. I do not think that relieving them from a traumatic burden is anything negative.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that “burden” here encompasses many different types of burden. One that weighs heavily on many of my constituents is financial burden—in particular, the cost of care at the end of life. That is very directly something that they would wish to relieve their children and descendants of. Does he not accept that the word “burden”, while I hear what he says about it being imprecise, nevertheless contains many different examples, rather than just the one to which he referred?

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Lady is quite right, and she makes my point very neatly for me: the language here is so wide-ranging that it could be anything. Other provisions in the Bill deal with exactly the concerns she expresses. A specific part of the Bill talks about people benefiting financially and how they may not participate. We had a long discussion about coercion and pressure.

[Dr Tidball]

I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point. Inserting the amendment—and the language of, and focus on, “benefit”—in a paragraph that deals with the two criminal concepts of coercion and pressure, actually undermines the existing focus of the paragraph. Does he agree that it is better and stronger to keep the focus on the two criminal concepts, which would require the mens rea—which I think some colleagues are indicating—and the actus reus, and that that is not achieved by inserting the language about benefits?

[Kit Malthouse]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who has made the case much more eloquently than I could have done. She is quite right. We have heard endlessly from witnesses and others that simplicity is best, and that by inserting this kind of complexity, we create yet more difficulty.

I have two other things to say. From the point of view of autonomy, the amendments are trying to police the thoughts of the individual who comes forward in a way that, as I said, may mean that they become guarded in conversations with their physicians. One of the things that I have learned over the past 10 years or so, and that we have heard from witnesses, is that many people who are in extremis at their end are very determined that they will achieve a death other than what nature has laid out before them. That determination comes through from those who go to Switzerland, often in the teeth of the wishes of their family. They will go in secrecy, not telling anyone, because they do not want to put anyone else under threat of criminal prosecution.

We have heard lots of stories over the years—some were mentioned on Second Reading—of people who have killed themselves in terrible circumstances, again, secretly determined that they will not go through that end. My concern is that if we insert such amendments into the Bill, we start to police the conversation in a way that means that people determined to achieve an assisted death will do other than have a free and frank exchange in a sensitive way with their physician. Instead, they will try to tread the path to get what they want.

For example, if the issue was physical pain, the conversation might go: “Why do you want an assisted death?” “Well, of course it is just the pain. It’s all the pain. That is all I want—I’m just frightened about the pain.” “Are you doing it for the benefit of others?” “No—absolutely not! I am doing it completely for myself.” We can see how people might start to modify their conversation, rather than having what should be a sympathetic, empathetic, conversation between doctor and patient about where they should go.

My concern is that, as with a previous grouping, this attempt to micromanage and police the conversation, at the same time as attempting to police the way people should be thinking, threatens the whole concept of assessment and relationship, which we have heard about from many physicians—that is done on a daily basis in not dissimilar circumstances, where life and death is at stake. That complexity and those extra layers, in my view, start to make the Bill less safe.

[Sarah Olney]

I want to pick up on the right hon. Gentleman’s point about wanting patients to be able to have a free and frank conversation with their doctors. In a hypothetical scenario, someone suffering from a terminal illness and in the last six months of their life might say to their doctor, “I would like to explore an assisted dying option.” The doctor asks, “Why is that?” They say, to hark back to my previous example, “Because I want to save my children the cost of my end-of-life care bills.” How does the right hon. Gentleman think the doctor should react in that circumstance, given that that is a free and frank explanation of the person’s reasons?

[Kit Malthouse]

The Bill makes it quite obvious that the doctor would not regard that as a legitimate reason to give people an assisted death, if that was their only purpose. As we said before, however, most people have a range of purposes for seeking an assisted death. In my view—certainly in my experience—the primary one is always having the option of control at the end.

[Danny Kruger]

Will my right hon. Friend explain what the doctor would do if he or she did not think that there was an appropriate reason to approve the death? The Bill simply requires there to be a settled and informed view. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park says, the motivation might be that the person wanted to save their children the care costs—at which point the doctor, if they could not find evidence of coercion, would say, “Go for it. That is a perfectly good reason.” Is that not the case?

[Kit Malthouse]

It would depend on the circumstances of whether the doctor perceived that the request was made under pressure or coercion. Pressure or coercion can be financial as well as emotional. I would expect and hope that a doctor would question a motivation on that basis. The point, however, is that we have to be very careful about making a law that attempts to police the thoughts of individuals. My concern is that if we start to delineate to an ever more exacting degree what is and is not acceptable as a motivation, we will start to steer people down a road on which they try—this phrase has been used—to game the system to get what they want.

As many of us know, because we have seen it, we live in an age of social media where it is perfectly possible to go on to the internet to get advice about how best to apply for certain benefits and welfare: how someone can best fill in a form, answer certain questions or go through a personal independence payment assessment to get what they want, even though that may not be appropriate for them.

I have no doubt that if, as it develops, we delineate the issue in such a way that there are certain things one should say and certain things one should not, we will run the risk of limiting the conversation that the doctor can have, in a way that is not safe.

[Danny Kruger]

Obviously, we do not want people gaming the system, but I would rather that there were a system, even if it were gamed, than to have no safeguards whatever—which, I am afraid to say, is the case with this Bill. The only coercion that the doctor is looking for is coercion from other people; we do not think that that barrier is strong enough, but it is about coercion from outside. But internal coercion—people saying, “I want to do this to save my family care costs, and not just the sight of me in agony”—would be perfectly acceptable under the Bill. Is my right hon. Friend content with that?

[Kit Malthouse]

I am not sure that that would be perfectly acceptable under the Bill; I would be interested to hear what clause my hon. Friend has in mind. As we have discussed, financial coercion is a well perceived concept. As we have heard from other Members, it can be subtle and implied. That will be for practice guidelines, but as far as I can see it is perfectly well covered in the legislation.

[Danny Kruger]

I am sorry to push my right hon. Friend further but to reiterate my point, we are not talking about external coercion. We are talking about the explicit motivation of somebody with a settled and informed wish that they want to die to save their family the cost of their care. My understanding is that the Bill would allow that. Does he agree and is he content with that?

[Kit Malthouse]

That is not my interpretation of the Bill, no. I would not be content for that to be somebody’s primary purpose—of course not. My point remains: we run into dangerous ground when we start, by legislation, to try to police the thoughts and motivation of an individual, other than in trying to detect external pressure from others. I am concerned that the amendments run us up that dead end.

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

Surely, if we are policing the thoughts of the individual seeking to avail themselves of the service, we are working actively against that individual’s autonomy?

[Kit Malthouse]

That is exactly my point, and the point on which I was going to conclude. All of the Bill is designed to put control in the hands of dying people as they face what they regard as an undesirable ending to their life. We are trying to do so within the scope of safeguards that protect those who are vulnerable and not able to make a decision freely for themselves.

If we continue down the line of inserting this kind of complexity into the system, I am afraid that we run the risk of creating a very narrow channel for people to navigate. That will mean either that they feel forced to navigate it in a particular way or that they cannot navigate it at all, which will serve to restrict the conversation between assessing medics and patients in an undesirable way. For those reasons and because of the legal imprecision with which they are drafted, I am afraid I will be opposing the amendments, well motivated though they are.

[Danny Kruger]

The purpose of the amendments, and the reason why I am supporting them, is that they make the Bill honest. They will make the Bill do what the public think it does and is the reason why so many people around the country and in Parliament have supported it: because they understand it to be for exactly the purpose specified in the amendments. In fact, the amendments add safeguards that at least two strong supporters of the Bill in the House of Commons—I will not mention them—thought were already there. Those people have gone on the record stating that these safeguards exist in the Bill, but they do not.

We need to acknowledge motivation. As I said in my exchange with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, my concern is that the absence of recognition of motivation is a significant lacuna in the Bill. Earlier—or perhaps it was yesterday—my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley sought to draw a distinction between a depressed person who wants to die because of their terminal illness and someone who wants to die because of their depression. But in the Bill as it is written, there is no requirement for any causal link between the terminal illness and the desire to die. Under the Bill, someone’s reason for wanting to die does not need to be linked to the terminal illness; in fact, no reason is required. The Bill is totally neutral—in fact, it is silent—on the whole question of motivation. My hon. Friend also talked in an intervention about people who want to end their lives because of suffering and pain—again, that is not mentioned in the Bill. I will come to that shortly when I discuss amendment 235.

There is no reason required to see a clear, settled and informed wish. As discussed earlier, I recognise that there are safeguards intended to detect coercion or pressure, but that does not include people putting pressure on themselves. It is important to consider people’s motivation in situations such as the example given of somebody who wants to spare their family the ordeal—the trauma—of witnessing a bad death. Those sorts of people do not write in to us, by the way. Evidence has been submitted by many people who have experienced the trauma of having watched their relative die badly, but there is also the experience of people whose relatives have been through an assisted death.

I was talking earlier to the noble Baroness Finlay, the former chair of the National Council for Palliative Care, who cited evidence heard by the Commission on Palliative and End-of-Life Care. A man requested and received an assisted death in the Netherlands for the explicit purpose of sparing his son from seeing him degenerate and die badly. The son was desperate for his father to stay alive—he wanted to go with him through the ordeal—but the father refused. The impact on that young man has been significant, traumatic and destructive.

Even if the patient wishes to do something for the sake of their children, it is not necessarily the case that that will happen or that it will be a good thing. Children can be traumatised by such decisions. Crucially, we should insist that the Bill does what it aspires to do and what many of its advocates have set out clearly over many months. Its purpose is to help people to die, specifically to avoid terrible pain and suffering—but crucially, for themselves and not because they fear that they will be a burden. The fact is that many people do feel that they would be a burden.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who has intervened a couple of times this afternoon and made a very coherent argument about the importance of autonomy. I think he was suggesting—my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire hinted at this, too—that it is an appropriate decision if a person seeks an assisted death because they do not want to be a burden on others.

In fact, that point was made by people giving evidence to us from abroad. Some of the Australian witnesses—and, I think, the American witnesses—openly said, “Why not? This is consistent with people’s autonomous choice, and if they want to die to save their children’s inheritance or to prevent them from seeing them suffer, that is legitimate.” I would like more people to say openly, as a reason to legalise assisted death, that that is appropriate and that nobody should object—that the judges, doctors and everyone else should nod that through. I do not think that was the sense of the House on Second Reading and I do not personally think it is the view of the public, but if people think that is an acceptable reason to legislate for assisted dying, let us hear it.

I want to emphasise the point about the number of people who genuinely seek an assisted death because they feel that they are a burden on others—not for their own sake, but to save their loved ones money or to avert their distress. A very large number of people—I said most, but I correct myself; I think it is getting on for half of the relevant people in Oregon, Canada and elsewhere—cite burden as the reason for seeking an assisted death.

I note in passing—I hope the Committee will pay attention to this point—that I am concerned that we often feel we are legislating into a vacuum: we pass a law, it will apply, and that is that. As I said yesterday, the law is a teacher and has a direct cultural effect on society. It is very noteworthy that in countries where there is data on motivation, the number of people seeking an assisted death because they feel that they are a burden has risen significantly. It all started, naturally enough, with just the very desperate cases that we are all familiar with and we all understand the rationale for, but the number rose sharply. In the early years, between 12% and 34% across those four jurisdictions cited being a burden as a reason for seeking an assisted death. That has gone up to between 35% and 59% in the four jurisdictions—from around a quarter to around a half in terms of people who seek it. We could pass this law for the small number of people we think we want to help, but in due course many more people will avail themselves of an assisted death because they feel they are a burden.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

[Kit Malthouse]

For clarity, is my hon. Friend saying that he supports the amendments because he believes that the only reason that someone should have an assisted death is to avoid physical pain, not the circumstances that we have talked about—bursting arteries and fungating tumours—and therefore that if pain can be controlled, the notion of autonomy, control and choosing the time and place of my own death should all be dismissed?

[Danny Kruger]

The amendment is clear that the primary purpose should be to avoid physical pain. That needs no further clarification.

Let me turn to the discussion of pain. As I have said, the amendment would make the Bill honest and make it do what most people out there want it do. It would also have the great benefit, in my view at least, of reducing those who would be eligible for an assisted death to very a small number. I have heard the Bill’s advocates make the point repeatedly that we are talking about only a very small number of people.

The fact is that the most common reason for assisted suicide in other countries is not pain. Usually, in those countries, the law was passed on a wave of sympathy for people in agony at the end of their life, but most people do not seek an assisted death for the purpose of avoiding pain. The most common reason in Oregon, according to research there, is existential angst—emotional distress—not physical suffering. The Committee heard evidence from Western Australia that the most common reasons are loss of dignity, autonomy and the ability to enjoy life. In Tasmania, another place where there has been research, only 16% of people cite avoidance of pain as the reason for seeking an assisted death.

In my view, if we focused the Bill on pain, we could do even more to reduce the number of people who die in pain, because it should be even smaller than it is. Let me say a word or two about the palliation of pain. We have no doctors in the Committee who are on my side of the argument to make this point, so I refer to experts outside the room. Quite a lot of weight has been put on research published last year by the Office of Health Economics that said that 20 people would die every day in pain, even with access to palliative care. The point is often made that palliative care is wonderful—we all agree that it needs more resourcing and it should be more widely available—but even if it were provided brilliantly for everyone, a large number of people would still die in pain.

Without digging into the problems with the research, I simply point out that the methodology was very suspect. It assumed that people who receive hospice care are the same with respect to pain as people who do not. It just looked at the hospice population and extrapolated more broadly. That is, of course, ridiculous, because people in a hospice are much more likely to be suffering and to be experiencing bad pain; often, that is the reason that they are admitted to the hospice. That extrapolation was inappropriate.