Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting)

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Opher]

I think there is some truth in that, to be fair, but I believe we should leave it open to the family’s discretion, with the proviso that the doctor should be close at hand, whether that means outside the door or whatever. We need Government advice on whether amendment 429 is safe. I have nothing further to say.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I will cover a few of the amendments, and follow on from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, whose points I broadly agree with.

When it comes to the location and, actually, a lot of the elements, I fear we are trying to over-specify practical matters. As in so many cases, this is not about capacity, coercion, assessment and so on; it is about the practicalities of death, and it is right that we allow the healthcare team for dying people and their families to operate with the professional skill with which they currently operate.

On amendment 429, on the doctor being in the same room, I can think of many instances in healthcare in which a healthcare professional is in an adjoining room, potentially even with a door open so there is a line of sight, and that is entirely appropriate. I think of observations, for example, in various settings. That provision is absolutely necessary and allows an appropriateness of proximity without intrusion. I am sure the doctor will be in the room at the point at which the substance is taken, but if someone then goes into unconsciousness fairly quickly, as would happen in the vast majority of cases, and then takes half an hour or so to die, it is entirely unnecessary for a doctor to be standing there in the same room, towering over the family, when they could be near at hand. I just do not think we need to specify that in the Bill.

I have some sympathy with amendments 532 and 533, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, on the Secretary of State setting out regulations, but I fear the hon. Member for East Wiltshire did an excellent job of persuading me that they should not be accepted, because when a “must” is included in that way, we get into saying, “The Secretary of State must tell a doctor exactly what they must do in every situation.” The legal parameters are clearly set out in the Bill as drafted. There is no administration by a doctor on a person’s behalf; it must all be self-done. Additionally, we have not yet mentioned the existing provisions in clause 9(2)(c), which requires, at the point of assessment, a conversation between the assessing doctor and the patient about their wishes in the event of complications or any sort of delay.

[Jack Abbott]

I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying about the Secretary of State not stipulating every dot of every i and cross of every t in the regulations, but we are talking about something that has not been practised in this country, so we do not have existing guidance anywhere about what to do in this event. My hon. Friend may correct me, but I think it is really important that the Secretary of State has to give some direction through regulations on what a doctor is able or not able to do in these situations. I appreciate that there must remain room for a doctor’s best-case judgment in certain situations but, from a legal perspective and otherwise, the Secretary of State and the Department will have to give some thought to exactly how the regulations work.

[Lewis Atkinson]

To me, amendment 430, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, strikes the right balance. Under clause 30 the Secretary of State “may” make provision for codes of practice on these matters if that is required; I am uncomfortable with saying that the Secretary of State “must” do so, when it is likely that it will be more appropriate for the GMC or some other body to make those regulations. We get into a difficult precedent if the Secretary of State must specify the reaction in certain medical circumstances but we routinely leave that to medical regulation and practice more widely. I think a “may” power, as set out in amendment 430, would allow that backstop provision, but would not get into the issue of “must”. It is also likely to be more respectful of the conversations as outlined in clause 9.

[Sarah Olney]

I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and a lot of what he is talking about in terms of giving doctors discretion makes a lot of sense in a routine medical intervention, but this is not a routine medical intervention. This is a very serious point, and the doctor’s judgment in this case could well fall either side of what is permissible by the law. That is why it is so important that it is really clear. Whether we decide in Committee that it must be on the face of the Bill, or whether we want, as per the hon. Member for Ipswich’s amendment 532, to leave it to the Secretary of State, it must be clear and specific.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I think the Bill is very clear on the legal parameters. A doctor may not act, in terms of administering the substance, in a way to hasten death. Within that, we are back into the realms of normal medical practice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud set out. I am sure that there will be legal guidance, whether that be from the GMC or elsewhere, if and when the Bill were to pass. The Secretary of State would have the powers anyway under clause 30, but for the avoidance of doubt, amendment 430 strikes the right balance in giving backstop permissions to the Secretary of State to clarify anything if needed.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On the hon. Member for Richmond Park’s point, which a couple of people have made, I do not think anyone is saying that this is not a new situation—of course it is, as we are all aware. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud’s point was that a doctor being with a patient who is dying is not a new situation. That is the important distinction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and articulated that better than I was managing to.

[Danny Kruger]

We are not necessarily talking about someone who is dying right here and now in consequence of the drugs they have taken—we could be talking about someone who is many months away from their death. The scenario we are envisaging is that fatal drugs —poisonous drugs—have been administered to the patient’s body and we are asking doctors to be normal doctors in that scenario. In a genuinely normal scenario of doctors being doctors, they would attempt to revive the patient and to save their life in that circumstance. If the parallel is with the last moments of someone’s natural death, the doctor’s job is simply to make them comfortable, but that it is not the scenario. The scenario is some months away from their natural death, when they have months to live. They may not even be exhibiting extreme illness—they may just have a terminal disease. If they have been given fatal drugs, what on earth is the doctor to do in the scenario where the drugs are not working? Surely that is a question for all of us, rather than just leaving it up to the doctors.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I disagree. As clause 9 makes clear, the doctor will have had a conversation with the patient about their wishes in advance, in exactly the same way as a surgeon would have a conversation with a patient in advance of high-risk surgery—

[Sarah Olney]

rose—

[Lewis Atkinson]

I am not going to take any further interventions; I am going to answer this point and make some progress.

The surgeon would say, “If this procedure fails, would you wish me to attempt resuscitation? Would you wish to be put on a support system?” The hon. Gentleman misunderstands current practice on consultation with patients, in advance of procedures, about their wishes, which is where there is significant established evidence.

[Danny Kruger]

rose—

[Lewis Atkinson]

I am going to finish on this point.

On amendment 533, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, I suspect that, in dealing with a later clause, we will have a conversation about issues around hospices and care homes, but again I find the requirements under the amendment unduly onerous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and others have said, often people’s preferred place of death is at home. Are we really saying that the Secretary of State would specify addresses or the nature of places where these procedures should take place?

[Jack Abbott]

No, is the short answer to that question. Because a doctor has to be present, are we saying that doctors have to go to someone’s home to administer this? Would the Secretary State say, for example—this is not my personal view; it is for discussion—that it would have to take place in a medical facility, or could people choose to have an assisted death at home? The amendment stipulates that the Secretary of State would have to give that guidance at the time. I do not see how we can have doctors going out to individuals’ homes to assist the process.

[Lewis Atkinson]

It is by no means clear that doctors would not go out to people’s homes, but my hon. Friend asks whether doctors would have to do that—there are no powers of compulsion anywhere in the Bill, because the entire model is an opt-in model at every stage, including the example he gave in respect of hospices. It is a matter between the resident of the home and the treating medical practitioner.

In reality, healthcare procedures do not happen ubiquitously: they happen in appropriate places with appropriate cultural sensitivity. We do not specify in primary legislation for that to happen. Health professionals, and those involved in the management and commissioning of health services, currently have ample opportunities to co-ordinate and consider such matters.

[Jack Abbott]

I appreciate my hon. Friend giving way again. For people in the Committee and our colleagues across the House, there has to be clarity. Perhaps it is a question for the Bill promoter’s and the Government. As I said, I have no personal problem with it, but is there an expectation that assisted dying will take place at home as well as in medical facilities?

[Lewis Atkinson]

I cannot speak for the Bill’s promoter or for others, but a significant number of people wish to die at home.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I can help my hon. Friend out on this point. There is an expectation in the jurisdictions where assisted dying happens that it happens in different locations, very much centred around the patient’s wishes, which is the approach we should take.

[Lewis Atkinson]

That is exactly right. That will quite possibly include people’s individual homes as well as not in their homes, in places of appropriate care and peace and tranquillity.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Member might be interested to know that many hospices and, in fact, the hospice movement have developed what they call hospice at home, which is for people in the advanced stage of illness who want to die in their own home. Services are provided to them to palliate them as they reach death at home.

[Lewis Atkinson]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Another point we have not yet mentioned is that the Care Quality Commission regulates healthcare on the basis of location of delivery. Hospice services cannot just be provided from a random place: the place has to be registered with the CQC as suitable for the provision. I am sure that regime would continue in this instance.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Amendment 435 would require the co-ordinating doctor to escalate the care of an individual to the appropriate emergency medical services if the assisted dying procedure has failed. Requiring the co-ordinating doctor to make a referral may engage article 8 of the European convention on human rights—the right to family and private life—if the person has indicated that they do not wish to be referred to emergency services or do not wish to be resuscitated. In a situation where the procedure has failed, doctors would, as in their normal duties, support a person in line with their professional obligations and their understanding of the person’s wishes. This could include the involvement of the emergency services, but it would be unusual to specify a particular approach in legislation.

As currently drafted, clause 18(9) provides that:

“The coordinating doctor must remain with the person”

once the approved substance has been provided, until either

“the person has self-administered the approved substance and…the person has died, or…it is determined by the coordinating doctor that the procedure has failed”,

or, alternatively, until

“the person has decided not to self-administer the approved substance.”

Amendment 429 would remove the clarification currently provided for in clause 18(10) that the co-ordinating doctor does not have to be

“in the same room as the person”

once the approved substance has been provided. However, clause 18(9) requires the doctor only to

“remain with the person”.

It may still be possible that the co-ordinating doctor could remain with the person but in a different room if they decide that is more appropriate.

Amendment 436 would increase reporting obligations on the co-ordinating doctor in cases where complications have occurred. It is not clear in the amendment what would be considered a complication and therefore trigger the reporting requirement. It is also not clear what details should be set out in the person’s medical records or in the report to the chief medical officer and voluntary assisted dying commissioner.

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

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger.

I rise to speak to a couple of the amendments. Amendment 348 is likely unnecessary. I would have been minded to support it had it referred to a registered GP, but the language of “usual or treating doctor” is unconvincing. I am not sure what those terms refer to. The registered GP absolutely should be informed, and both normal practice and the provisions in the Bill about entering information into medical records would mean that that is the case. For me, “usual doctor” is not the right terminology; it does not achieve what I think some of its proponents want. With reluctance, I will vote against that amendment because it does not refer to a registered general practitioner.

On amendments 303 and 458, I believe there must be provision for a second opinion. However, I am persuaded by the points made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park about amendment 459. I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud: although the independence of the second opinion is important on matters such as the terminal prognosis, when it comes to the detection of coercion, the more information, the better. It is one thing to be independent in a medical assessment, but the amendment speaks to a psychosocial assessment. We are trying to detect coercion, so it is important that every decision maker gets further information as the process progresses.

The provision for five different touchpoints of assessment is one of the strengths of the Bill. Each assessment should be done in a way that can be progressed with more information. It is not just five different independent points of information; because of the Bill’s record-keeping provisions, the assessment should become increasingly informed throughout the process. I certainly think that the panel, or whatever we get to, should have sight of any negative assessment from an independent doctor, as well as any positive one. The panel will then be able to do its job of scrutinising the two decisions, potentially weighing them up, and calling the different doctors who have given different decisions. I am, then, persuaded by amendment 459.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

It came up in the debates last week that we heard some evidence from medical practitioners on how decisions and assessments were better made when done collaboratively. That means that we need to keep them independent but that, where possible, doctors should be working together in this process. Does my hon. Friend agree that amendment 459, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, may assist in that?

[Lewis Atkinson]

Yes, I do. I recognise the importance of independent assessment for prognosis and capacity. However, particularly with the issue of coercion, healthcare is a team sport, as anyone who has worked in healthcare knows. The more information and the more viewpoints we can get in those instances, the better. One of the strengths of the Bill is the team sense around it, which we will further in the amendments to clause 12 that we will come on to in due course.

I will finish briefly on amendment 460. I do not see the loophole that has been described. I think we would all want someone to be able to cancel their first declaration, and they are more likely to do so if they feel they have the option of going back and making a future first declaration. My worry with amendment 460 is that, by removing the word “particular”, it suggests that people are only able to make one first declaration in the course of their life. With the periods of reflection built into the Bill, which Members spoke about earlier, if someone changes their mind, they should cancel their first declaration. They are absolutely free to do so and the Bill, as currently drafted, makes good provision for that. To me, amendment 460 would remove the ability for that person to come back to that decision at a later point and go through the assessment process again. While I understand the motivations behind amendment 460, I am cautious about it for those reasons.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Amendment 348 seeks to add an additional requirement to clause 8(5). This would mean that, where the independent doctor is satisfied that the requirements under clause 8(2) have been met, they must

“inform the person’s usual or treating doctor and, where relevant, the doctor who referred the person to the independent doctor, of the outcome of the assessment.”

Some elements of amendment 348 duplicate requirements that already appear in the Bill, such as the requirement in clause 8(5)(b) for the doctor to inform the co-ordinating doctor of the outcome, including providing a copy of the statement.

The amendment would also overlap with the requirements in clause 16 for the co-ordinating doctor to make entries in the person’s medical record that must include the original statement or declaration. Where the co-ordinating doctor is not with the person’s GP practice, they must also give notice to a registered medical practitioner with the person’s GP practice of the outcome of the assessments.

Amendment 303 seeks to prevent a person from seeking multiple second assessments from different independent doctors. It places a requirement on the independent doctor to confirm

“that no other practitioner has undertaken a second assessment for the same person.”

This amendment creates the risk of a medical practitioner inadvertently committing an offence if there is no centralised record-keeping. It may also have the impact of preventing the person seeking assistance from obtaining a second opinion, as provided for in clause 10. Under the amendment, as drafted, it is unclear how this is intended to interact with the possibility of an independent doctor’s becoming unable or unwilling to continue to act as the independent doctor following the second assessment, when an alternative independent doctor may therefore be required.

On amendment 458, as the Bill stands, clause 10 provides that if, following the second assessment, the independent doctor refuses to make the statement confirming that they are satisfied that matters in clause 8(2)(a) to (e) are met, the co-ordinating doctor may refer the person to a different registered medical practitioner who meets the requirements of clause 8(6), and is able and willing to carry out an assessment mentioning clause 8(2). The effect of the amendment is to restrict the circumstances in which the co-ordinating doctor can make a referral under clause 10(1) to a different registered medical practitioner to only when there has been a material change of circumstances. It is not clear from the amendment who is required to establish that there has been a material change in circumstances and/or how that will be proved. That may cause some uncertainty for the co-ordinating doctor.

I now turn to amendment 459. Clause 10 provides that if, following the second assessment, the independent doctor refuses to make the statement that they are satisfied that the person meets the criteria in clause 8(2)(a) to 8(2)(e) when conducting the second assessment, the co-ordinating doctor may, if requested to do so by the person who made the first declaration, refer that person to a different registered medical practitioner who meets the requirements of clause 8(6) and is able and willing to carry out an assessment of the kind mentioned in clause 8(2).

The effect of the amendment is that, where such a referral is made to the registered medical practitioner under clause 10(1), the co-ordinating doctor is required to provide them with the report by the independent doctor setting out their reasons for refusal. If the new registered medical practitioner reaches a different conclusion from the original independent doctor, they must produce a report setting out why they disagree. The two reports must be made available to any subsequent decision maker under the Bill, and to the commissioner. This additional requirement for reports on the reasons for refusal or differences in opinion may make the process of seeking assistance longer and add to capacity demands on co-ordinating and independent doctors.

Turning to amendment 460, clause 10(3) provides that if, following the second assessment, the independent doctor refuses to make the statement mentioned in clause 8(5), the co-ordinating doctor may make one referral for a second opinion. The effect of the amendment is to remove the word “particular” from clause 10(3), which says that only one second opinion may be sought

“In consequence of a particular first declaration made by a person.”

The amendment is unclear and could have several possible effects in practice. For example, it could have the effect of limiting the circumstances in which a referral can be made under clause 10(1) to the first time a person makes a first declaration.

I hope that these observations were helpful to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

Does the hon. Member share my concern that the wording in medical records has no duration over a person’s lifetime? For example, consulting all the medical records of someone in their 70s or 80s at the end of their life would surely include the records from when they were a child—childhood vaccinations, the removal of tonsils and so on—and that would clearly be impractical. Does he not agree that amendment 201 would clarify that element?

[Danny Kruger]

What the amendment clarifies is that the doctor does not have to look at any records at all unless he or she considers them relevant. It gives total discretion to the doctor to disregard huge swathes of the patient’s history. Yes, I do expect the doctor to review the entirety of a patient’s record—obviously, the record of a childhood broken leg can be skipped over quickly. What I do not want to do, as the Bill currently does, is allow the doctor to say, “Oh, I missed this evidence of a mental health condition” or “this indication of coercion from five or 10 years ago, because I didn’t consider that aspect of their records to be relevant.” It places a significant obligation on the doctor, but that is, I am afraid, what we are doing in the Bill. We are placing huge obligations on doctors and we should do it properly.

[Danny Kruger]

As I have said in my many exchanges with the hon. Gentleman, I want to see the good practice that he claims—absolutely accurately, I am sure—to perform is applied across the system. He says that if doctors see in the summary some indication of concerns, they will look more closely into it. Well, I jolly well hope they would. The problem is that the summary might not be complete. I suppose the distillation of my point is that we should say, “Don’t rely on the summary. Proceed with a proper analysis. Take responsibility for making sure that you have reviewed the entirety of the patient’s record.”

We have to address throughout our consideration of the Bill the workload that we are placing on busy professionals. Nevertheless, if we consider that this matters—and it is a question about knock-on effects on the NHS, which we could discuss in due course—it is appropriate to expect proper time to be taken. A specialist with two hours and a full record in front of them might spot the misdiagnoses, question the prognosis, flag the depression and catch the abuse. If given half the time and a licence to skim the record, as the amendment would give them, they could very easily miss something, so I think the word “relevant” is a great gamble.

[Lewis Atkinson]

The hon. Member is discussing amendment 201, but there is also amendment 422, which indicates that the professional should make inquiries of other healthcare professionals who have been involved in treatment recently. Does he not agree that that would mitigate against the sort of scenario he describes?

[Danny Kruger]

I will come on to that. I agree with him: amendment 422 is a very helpful amendment, and I support that. It is a very good suggestion that wider consultation should be made, and it is a point that we have been trying to make with amendments throughout. I recognise that that would enhance the safeguards in the Bill—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment 422 seeks to introduce an additional requirement that the assessing doctor must consider whether to consult health or social care practitioners who are providing, or have recently provided, care to the patient. The amendment is presented as addressing previously expressed concerns, but I regret to say that I feel it is excessively weak. It is a positive step in recognising the issue, but it does not ensure a broader and more informed assessment of a patient’s condition and external influences.

Patients with terminal illnesses often receive care from palliative care teams, social workers or community nurses who might have crucial insights into their wellbeing and the potential external pressures on them. The British Psychological Society has highlighted that mental health and social pressures are often overlooked in assisted dying requests in other countries. Social workers and allied health professionals play a key role in assessing whether a patient feels pressurised due to financial, social or familial burdens. As I have repeatedly said and we will debate further in due course, in my view it is very important that that assessment comes earlier in the process.

We have evidence from doctors—I will not cite it at length—pointing out that independent doctors who refuse assisted dying requests are often ignored, and patients are simply referred to another doctor willing to approve the request, as we have discussed. Consultation with health and social care professionals could act as an additional safeguard against that practice. Although the amendment introduces an obligation to consult other professionals, it leaves it to the discretion of the assessing doctor. It relies on the doctor’s subjective judgment

“if they consider that there is a need”.

I think that is too weak for assisted dying, where consistency is so critical. One doctor might consult a palliative care specialist to explore pain relief options, while another might not, assuming that they understand the patient’s suffering sufficiently. The variability in the Bill—this discretion—undermines fairness and safeguarding.

There is also a lack of accountability in what is a very sensitive process. There is no requirement to document the consideration process, which weakens oversight in a context where errors could be fatal. I respect the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire that we must not police conversations and that being prescriptive may encourage a tick-box approach. I am afraid that we risk that tick-box approach if this amendment is all that we do on this subject. We can imagine a scenario in which a doctor simply makes a note in the record with little underpinning substance.

There is also no obligation to act on the specialist input, so the duty ends at the consultation. There is no requirement to integrate the findings of the additional input that the doctor has received, which is a glaring flaw in what is an irreversible procedure that is being authorised. Finally, there is insufficient rigour for the ethical stakes. This discretionary duty is too weak to catch the difficult cases.

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

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

rose—

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

rose—

[The Chair]

I call Lewis Atkinson.

[Lewis Atkinson]

Thank you, Mrs Harris—you really are giving the Minister some exercise during these long sittings.

Amendment 14 likens assisted dying to organ donation. I understand that an organ donor, before the point of independent assessment, has had no other independent assessment, which is in stark contrast to this Bill. The idea that, by failing to support this amendment, we are somehow adopting a weaker framework than for organ donation is patently false.

As the Bill sets out, there are already at least two assessments by independent doctors. As per the amendments we have already agreed, those doctors must have training, as specified by the Secretary of State, on the assessment of capacity and coercion. The rationale behind this amendment is already met, and it is significantly more strenuous than the framework for independent assessment in the event of organ donation.

[Danny Kruger]

I am not sure that is right. The amendment insists that this referral and assessment should happen at the earliest stage possible, in the same way as for organ donation. One of the confusions of the Bill is that multiple different conversations could happen. The purpose is to ensure that this conversation with a psychologist or social worker, as per organ donation, happens at the very earliest opportunity.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s reading. The amendment talks about the co-ordinating doctor, as in the first independent assessor, and that is the case in the provisions we have already adopted. Clearly, the co-ordinating doctor may consult—and must consult, as per the amendment we are about to get to—psychiatric or other expertise, if there is any doubt in their mind. Amendment 14 would not bring forward that assessment earlier than elsewhere. I urge hon. Members to bear in mind that the idea that this proposal is somehow weaker than the current human tissue regulations is absolutely false.

On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, the amendment does nothing to address coercion by a medical professional who knew the person beforehand. Under the amendment, it is by definition an independent person who has no prior relationship with the person.

[The Chair]

I call the Minister.

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

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Kim Leadbeater]

Well, that is the purpose of clause 4: the doctor has to lay out the options available to the patient as long as all the criteria are met.

We can see from the guidance that currently exists that doctors take a very sensitive and patient-centred approach to end-of-life conversations. If the law were to change, that approach would continue with additional training specifically related to assisted dying, as has been discussed. It would also mean that the issues that doctors currently face around discussing assisted dying would be addressed.

As the BMA says, at the moment

“The law does not provide a clear definition of which actions might constitute assisting or encouraging suicide…What if a patient wishes to travel abroad for assisted dying? While the act of travelling abroad for assisted dying is not illegal, assisting, facilitating, or encouraging someone to do so is a criminal offence…doctors need to be aware of the possibility of legal and professional sanctions if they were to do so.”

I imagine that that must create a real sense of jeopardy for doctors. Similarly, the GMC recognises that doctors will face challenges in

“ensuring that patients do not feel abandoned”,

while ensuring that the advice or information that they provide does not encourage or assist a person to end their own life.

These are very difficult conversations for patients and doctors, but by legalising assisted dying in this country we can give clear guidance through a robust legal framework, and create the thorough, transparent process that is currently lacking. These conversations provide a safeguard while the person is still alive. As the former director of public prosecutions, Sir Max Hill, told the Committee,

“In each of the 27 cases I considered, the deceased individual was already dead, and that is when the scrutiny started. The major advantage of the Bill, if I can put it that way, is that that will be reversed, and scrutiny will be before death.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 86, Q111.]

Mark Swindells from the General Medical Council told us:

“We do get inquiries from doctors who are concerned that they are doing the right thing when it might become apparent to them that a patient wants to travel overseas to access assisted dying.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 46, Q36.]

Bringing those conversations out into the open has to be better for the patient and the practitioner.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

With reference to amendment 8, and further to the intervention from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, can my hon. Friend reflect on the provisions as set out in clause 4(1) and (2), which say that the issue relates to doctors’ professional judgment and that doctors are under no obligation to raise those issues in any situation?

[Kim Leadbeater]

Absolutely. This is about professional judgment, which is what the BMA is really clear about. Doctors have to be able to use their professional judgment. They are not under any obligation to raise the issue, but they are not under any obligation not to raise it. The BMA is really clear about that. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

I welcome amendments 319 and 320 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford and I thank him once again for his positive engagement with the Bill. He raises a very valid point about the initial discussion. While the Bill is very clear that it applies only to terminally ill adults over the age of 18, in that someone would have to be over 18 to make the first declaration, it is not clear that the initial discussion could also not happen with someone under the age of 18.

We should not prohibit open conversations with terminally ill young people and their families, as they create openness, transparency and safeguards and provide much-needed support at what most of us can only imagine must be the most difficult time of anyone’s life. However, I think it should be made clear that the actual assisted dying process cannot be embarked upon unless someone is over the age of 18. I have taken advice about how best to incorporate that into the Bill from a drafting perspective. As a result, I have tabled amendment 418, which applies to clause 5, and states that regulations must provide that the first declaration contain, among other things,

“a declaration that they have had a preliminary discussion with a registered medical practitioner, that they were aged 18 or over when they had that discussion, and that they understand the information referred to in section 4(4)(a) to (c) that was provided during that discussion”.

As such, the aim of amendments 319 and 320 is achieved. I hope that that is to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford.

With regard to amendment 339, I have listened very carefully to the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, who tabled it, and the evidence from Mencap chief executive Dan Scorer, who suggested that for terminally ill people with learning disabilities

“that initial conversation has to be incredibly well supported and structured…the person should have accessible information in advance of that discussion so that they are fully informed about all their rights in terms of treatment options at end of life”. ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 280.]

I absolutely agree with the intention of the amendment. I am seeking advice on the legal and technical implications, as I believe there is some tightening up that would need to be done around some of the phrasing, such as the concept of “sufficient time” or what would constitute a “supporter”. I therefore cannot support the amendment as it stands, but I am very happy to look at ways to take this forward and to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the amendment, which, quite rightly, gives special consideration to people with autism and learning disabilities. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge is also considering tabling amendments that would have a similar effect; perhaps we could all meet together.

I also reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford that I am considering the involvement of people with learning disabilities, and groups representing them, in the development of guidance and training on assisted dying and end-of-life conversations. As Dan Scorer said,

“people with a learning disability should be involved in the development of that guidance” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 281.]

I absolutely agree.

Amendment 368, tabled by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, has been discussed this morning. I sought advice about it as it was new to me. I believe that no statutory guidance has yet been published under the Down Syndrome Act, so we lack detail. That Act resulted from another private Member’s Bill; I am sure we can all agree what an excellent process this is for making important changes to the law. As the Minister said, the amendment is likely to be unworkable for doctors so I cannot support it. I would, however, be very happy to discuss the thoughts of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire and look at how we can meet his objectives—possibly through an addition to new clause 8, which is about the duty to consult and the Secretary of State consulting with the Equality and Human Rights Commission. At that point, the specific needs of not just people with disabilities but those with other protected characteristics will be represented. Alternatively, we could look at the codes of practice in clause 30.

I am happy to take those discussions forward and may even be able to speak to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire at the drop-in session he is doing this week with the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, ahead of Down’s Syndrome Awareness Week.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

Again, this is a really interesting part of the Bill. If a doctor is routinely giving prognoses of six months where that is not appropriate, they will come up against the General Medical Council for being poor doctors, and the regulation around poor doctors is within the medical profession. If it is proven that someone has given a diagnosis that they cannot back up in any way, they would then be subject to their own professional standards. That is one of the things here: we cannot go through this Bill and specify the medical requirements at every stage, because that comes under a different format, which is called the General Medical Council. If someone has given a prognosis of six months or less, and if that is clearly inaccurate and would be contested by other doctors, they would be brought before the General Medical Council.

[Lewis Atkinson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the provision of a further independent doctor assessment—both one and two—in addition to the doctor conducting the initial discussion, would provide a further safeguard for a diagnosis, if terminality could not be supported by other professionals?

[Dr Opher]

I absolutely agree. We are imagining that the doctors will all be independent and will not know anything about what other doctors have said, but there will be communication and access to medical records, and they will also tell the original doctor what their opinion is, and so on.

If we accept these amendments, we risk over-embroidering the Bill, which will make it almost impossible for doctors to say anything in a consultation. We must leave that free, because that is a central tenet of medical care, and if we put laws around it, there will be legal process over the medical consultation, and doctors will be frozen with fear about breaking the law. They are regulated by the GMC, and we are all terrified of referrals to the General Medical Council for that very reason: because we are trying to operate at the best standard that we can. I truly understand the amendments, but I do not think they will make the Bill any safer, and that is what we are all here for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

Sorry, Mr Efford. I do not deny that the hon. Member makes a good point, but if we embroider this too much, the Bill will not be safe. That has been the case throughout. Any good medical care is based on giving treatment, availability and the likely effects of that, and on giving prognosis and the chance of the prognosis being longer or shorter. That is all based in good clinical care.

On amendment 343, the uncertainties of estimates of how long a person has to live are covered in clause 2(1)(b):

“the person’s death in consequence of that illness, disease or medical condition can reasonably be expected within 6 months.”

“Reasonably” is part of the Bill. It suggests that one cannot say that the estimate is exact. The Bill does not say that it is exact; it says that it is a reasonable estimate of that person’s life. I think that takes care of that amendment.

In amendment 344,

“the risks and benefits of such treatment, potential side effects, and the impact of the treatment”

are covered by

“any treatment available and the likely effect of it”

in clause 4(4)(b). My general point is that none of the amendments are actually wrong; they are just unnecessary. I would like to leave it at that.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I will be brief, as I am conscious that the Committee needs to make progress. I will speak briefly to amendment 275 in my name, which, as others have said, amends the current reference of “any available” to “all appropriate”. Listen—people at the end of their life deserve the best. They deserve to know about and have the option to access all appropriate care. In my experience of the NHS, that is exactly what clinical teams ensure patients get. But we need to guard against any suggestion that the information given should be somehow filtered around availability, which I know is not the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.

In my experience, views on availability are often incorrect anyway, so ensuring that “all appropriate” options are offered in information is the best thing to do. If nothing else, it creates a level of societal pressure to ensure that all appropriate care is available, which I hope we can all support.

[Naz Shah]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Lewis Atkinson]

No, I am going to make some progress because I am conscious of the time, and we want to get through these provisions.

I want to speak in favour of amendments 108 and 183. Those two amendments, taken together with amendment 275, create additional safeguards and assurances on the points made by colleagues on Second Reading that this is not cannot be raised in isolation—as my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has made clear should not be the case—and that referral should always be offered to specialists in palliative and wider care.

As others have said, those patients will almost undoubtedly be in touch with a variety of different multidisciplinary healthcare teams. The suggestion that there must be a further referral to another multidisciplinary team under the Bill, regardless of which teams an individual is seeing, is therefore not appropriate. I also refer Members to amendment 6 to clause 9, which states that a referral to a psychiatrist “must” be made. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has indicated that she is in favour of that amendment. That reinforces the fact that there will be a multidisciplinary approach, including psychiatric input, where there is any doubt before the third-tier stage of the panel.

For those reasons, I do not feel the other amendments—285, 343 and so on—are necessary. By accepting amendments 275, 108 and 183, we will be able to strengthen the Bill in the way that was set out to the House, and as we heard in oral and written evidence.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I rise in support of the amendments, especially amendments 342 and 425. We have discussed various aspects of the Bill, especially capacity, coercion and medical practices, under many previous amendments. As somebody who worked as a mental health nurse for many years, and who worked as part of a multidisciplinary team, I think that amendments 342 and 425 are some of the most important.

Amendment 342 talks about the preliminary conversation with the medical practitioner with whom the patient makes contact. Do we not think that the doctor who knows most about that patient is the best person to have that preliminary discussion? They will have the most information about them. When the patient, who has gone through so much difficulty, goes to their doctor or to a GP who knows them well and says, “I would like to choose the assisted dying pathway,” would that doctor then say, “I do not want to discuss this. Somebody else will.”?

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

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, which I welcome.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I will be brief. I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley confirm that she is minded to support amendment 341. It is incumbent on all of us, but perhaps particularly those in favour of the Bill, to place on record our appreciation and recognition of the fact that many people who work in our health services have strongly held religious beliefs, or beliefs of conscience—however they are motivated. As is the case for a range of other procedures and medical interventions, the law has to allow them scope to continue to practise. They make a valuable contribution to our health service and national life, and we should not do anything to impinge on that.

There is already strong guidance from the General Medical Council about personal belief, and that applies, as the hon. Member for Reigate mentioned, to the Abortion Act, as well as to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 and other procedures. It is not for any of us to second-guess someone’s conscience.

[Naz Shah]

I would like to add that there is nothing about female genital mutilation in anybody’s religion. It is not a religious belief; it is cultural, and it is actually child abuse. That is what it is—there are no ifs or buts about it.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. I gently say that the GMC guidance specifically references that Act, so that is what I was referring to.

I am pleased to see amendment 341, which I believe would bring the legislation into line with that GMC guidance, ensuring that removing the duty to refer would absolutely not be a licence for people to be left without access to care. The GMC is very clear, as the hon. Member for Reigate said, that people must be given sufficient information and be empowered to seek the options and information that they need. Therefore, I am pleased to support the amendment.

[Daniel Francis]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has said that she is minded to accept amendment 341. I will, however, still briefly speak to amendment 338 and new clause 13, which stand in my name.

The British Medical Association has said that it strongly urges MPs to support the amendments, which would remove the referral requirement in relation to preliminary discussions and establish an official body to provide factual information to patients about the range of options available to them. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire mentioned, Dr Green, in his oral evidence, said:

“The provision of information would be very useful, because in a situation where a doctor was unwilling to have an initial discussion with the patient, it would provide a way for the patient to get that information that was in no way obstructive.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 46, Q37.]

He went on to say:

“I do not believe that it is ever appropriate for a doctor to recommend that a patient goes through an assisted dying process.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 48, Q40.]

He also said:

“The word “referral”, to a doctor, means writing a letter or communicating with another doctor to see, but some doctors would find themselves not able to do that. For that reason, we believe that there should be an information service for the doctor to direct to.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 48, Q41.]

The BMA’s position is that the proposal is analogous to doctors’ professional legal obligations regarding abortion, and consistent with the Bill’s inclusion in clause 23 of a right to refuse, for any reason, to carry out activities directly related to assisted dying. It has said:

“In tandem, we believe creating an official body to provide individual information and advice to patients, to which doctors could direct (rather than refer) patients, would ensure that the doctor’s views are respected, whilst also—crucially—ensuring that patients can easily access the information and support they need. Currently, whilst the Bill acknowledges the need for accurate, impartial information and advice for patients, it gives no indication of how this might be delivered—generic published information would not be sufficient. Patients would need individual advice, guidance, and support so that they can make informed decisions, and an independent information service could meet this need.”

As the hon. Member for Reigate mentioned, a member of the Royal College of General Practitioners also said:

“The BMA referred to the word “refer”—referring to a colleague, for those who did not want to do it. We agree that signposting is a better process.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 279, Q365.]

He went on to say:

“Similar to other services, such as termination of pregnancy, we think that the best option would probably be that the GP could signpost to an information service, such as something like what the BMA suggested the other day. They would not have to do anything more than that, and they would not withhold any option from the patient.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 273, Q354.]

Therefore, I commend amendment 338 and new clause 13 to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph]

As the hon. Member for Richmond Park says, we have repeatedly debated people’s mental health and how, once somebody has had a diagnosis of a terminal illness, it can have an impact on their decision making. Amendment 425, which we discussed earlier, is about having access to a multidisciplinary team. That team could have on it a social worker or a psychiatrist who would make a comprehensive assessment, which would cover amendment 271.

The amendment is an opportunity for the Committee to look into this issue, to make the Bill stronger, and to bring in safeguards for vulnerable people who may feel suicidal, and may feel a burden to society or to the healthcare system, and may choose this way. Those people who are vulnerable would have a psychosocial and mental health assessment, which would make the Bill stronger and safer.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I rise to speak against the amendment; there are significant issues with it both in practice and in principle. In terms of practice, I draw Members’ attention to the fact that the amendment does not mention a psychosocial assessment; it mentions mandating “a psychosocial intervention”. As defined by the World Health Organisation, a psychosocial intervention can be as brief as five minutes. I know that it is a brief intervention: I used to manage services delivering psychosocial interventions. Nowhere in the amendment is the type of psychosocial intervention or its purpose specified. If Members hope that the amendment will lead to a psychosocial assessment—

[Sarah Olney]

For clarity, if the amendment specified a psychosocial assessment, would the hon. Gentleman be minded to support it?

[Lewis Atkinson]

The holistic assessment is already set out elsewhere in the Bill, so the amendment is not required. Amendment 275, which we made to clause 4, requires “all appropriate” psychological support to have been discussed with an individual in advance of the first declaration. I clearly supported that amendment, and I am very grateful that the Committee did.

From a practical point of view, amendment 271 talks about six months from the point of diagnosis, but if I had prostate cancer, I might have had prostate cancer for absolutely years—so is it six months from the point of being diagnosed with prostate cancer or six months from the point of being told that that is terminal? There are a huge range of practical issues with the amendment as currently written, but there are also issues regarding the principle as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

Would the hon. Gentleman not accept that a terminal illness in itself is a risk factor for an increased risk of suicide, and also that that risk is increased in the first six months following the diagnosis? That is the thinking behind the amendment.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I accept that that is a risk factor, but it is by no means determinative. Therefore, that risk factor has to be considered in the round with other risk factors such as levels of family and social support. As set out, the amendment does not distinguish between someone receiving a terminal diagnosis by themselves without any support network, and someone who expects to receive a terminal diagnosis at the end of a very long illness. As a point of principle I do not accept that we should mandate psychosocial interventions or that people must receive a level of healthcare in order for them to access other options related to their care—let alone the practicalities, which I have laid out, about when the provision would apply in relation to diagnosis and the fact that it is an intervention, which is in no way an assessment or any such thing.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I have made it clear throughout the debate that I am not offering a Government view on the merits of amendments. My remarks are focused much more on the legal and practical impacts of amendments, to assist Members in undertaking line-by-line scrutiny.

The amendments were tabled by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire. They would create a further eligibility requirement of the person seeking assistance under the Bill. Amendment 271 and 272 would limit those eligible to seek assistance to end their own life, in circumstances where their terminal diagnosis was received less than six months prior to the date on which the person signs the first declaration, to those who have received a psychosocial intervention. This would be subject to any exceptions provided for by the Secretary of State in regulations. Amendment 271 does not define what is meant by “received a psychosocial intervention” in relation to their diagnosis.

The term “intervention” is usually employed in the health service to mean the provision of support or treatment. This is different from, for example, an assessment that a clinician might undertake to assess whether an intervention may be required. While there is not a standard definition of psychosocial intervention, we understand it to mean psychosocial interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy. The amendment could create uncertainty as to what type of treatment a person will need to undergo to satisfy the requirement. If a person who would otherwise seek assistance to end their own life under the Bill is unable to, or does not wish to, receive a psychosocial intervention, unless an exemption applies, they may need to delay starting the assisted dying process until at least six months has elapsed from their terminal diagnosis. That could be challenging in circumstances where the terminal diagnosis has a prognosis of six months or less.

The amendment would also introduce a requirement for people in certain contexts to undergo an intervention that could undermine a person’s autonomy in making their own treatment decisions. Were the amendment made, it would confer a regulation-making power on the Secretary of State to create exceptions to the proposed provisions on psychosocial intervention. Regulations made using this power would be subject to the affirmative procedure. It would also give the Secretary of State the power to issue a code of practice in connection with the form of the psychosocial intervention required.

If the Committee decides to accept the amendment, further consideration would be needed on Report to ensure that it is operationally deliverable, and my earlier comments about the definition of psychosocial intervention and other comments would have to be clarified. The Government would, of course, stand ready to assist were the amendment to pass.

As I said earlier, the Government have taken a neutral position on the substantive policy questions relevant to how the law in this area could be changed—as I have made clear, that is a matter for this Committee and for Parliament as a whole. However, I hope that these observations have been helpful, and thank the Committee for its attention.

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

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Before we adjourned, I was talking about the two obvious problems with amendment 181. The first is that it would remove references to the Equality Act 2010 and the Mental Health Act 1983, which previously defined who did or did not have a disability or mental disorder. The amendment would remove those definitions, and the Bill would not define disability or mental disorder. What definition would medical practitioners, and indeed applicants, use to determine who does and does not have a disability or mental health disorder?

I appreciate that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley explained, that was done on the basis of advice she took to remove the references to the Equality Act because people with cancer could also declare themselves to be disabled people. However, that leaves a real opening, which weakens the clause even further. I cannot understand why we would remove one clear definition but not provide a replacement. That is a serious concern.

However, there is a bigger problem with the clause as it would be changed by my hon. Friend’s amendment. In referring to someone who could not be disqualified from assisted dying, the clause would still use the word “only”—again, I emphasise the word “only”. That leaves the door open for individuals with mental health disorders or disabled people to qualify for an assisted death based on the physical consequences of their condition. If the goal is to prevent people with mental illness or disabled people from qualifying, this amendment fails to do that. It weakens, rather than strengthens, the Bill’s safeguards.

As we heard in oral evidence, there are now 60 documented cases of individuals with eating disorders who have died by assisted death internationally.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that nearly all those cases were in jurisdictions whose schemes bear no resemblance to the one proposed in the Bill?

[Naz Shah]

I accept that the majority of those 60 cases are in such jurisdictions, but to me it does not matter whether it is the majority or one—one death is too many, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree. In Oregon, the evidence was that it was two, but it is also important to reflect on the fact that Oregon does not record these things. There is no record of the people who had anorexia—by and large, it is women—and who felt that they fit the criteria for assisted death, or that they were on a trajectory to fit it, because they had decided not to eat. So we cannot exactly rely on the two cases that have been found—and those were found only because of the research that was carried out. That does not quite satisfy the question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Francis]

I hear that point but, looking at my postbag, the people who berate me for not supporting the Bill often talk about their loved ones with motor neurone disease or Parkinson’s, which I understand from oral evidence will be exempt. We need to make it clear which disabilities and conditions will be eligible, and I am not sure that the amendments before the Committee nail it down. I am concerned that the wording would lead to potential loopholes and legal challenges.

We should still be concerned about legal review of the Bill, based on indirect disability discrimination. The Equality Act says that indirect discrimination happens when a rule, a policy or even a practice that applies to everyone disadvantages people with a particular disability, compared with people who do not have that disability, where that cannot be shown to be justified as being intended to meet a legitimate objective in a fair, balanced and reasonable way.

If we accepted this amendment to allow the inclusion of cancer and some other disabilities set out in the Equality Act, I believe it would be argued in due course that other disabilities meet the criteria for assisted dying and, despite the promises made to this Committee and to the House in good faith, the loopholes would allow the criteria to be widened.

Other amendments in this group retain the reference to the Equality Act 2010, which could equally result in legal challenges down the line, for the reasons my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley outlined this morning. I am not deliberately being difficult, but I am not sure that any of the amendments would completely achieve what they seek to achieve.

I await the Minister’s view on the matter but, as things stand, I am concerned that we will take the clause back to the House without completely satisfying Members’ aims. By allowing those with cancer to seek assisted dying, there could be a loosening of the rules for other disabilities. I fear there could be manuscript amendments on this matter, but I await the Government’s view on the robustness of these amendments if they were to be accepted.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I want to come back to the Bill as drafted. The key factor in clause 2, for me, is the focus on terminality. That is what determines eligibility: that death is reasonably expected within six months. The clauses that we are discussing, subject to amendment, merely clarify—rightly, because this is important, and I too will wait to hear the Government’s guidance—that solely having a disability or a mental disorder does not in itself provoke eligibility. I fear that we are overcomplicating matters; the focus on terminality is in the name of the Bill. It is the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, and that is what we are focusing on today. I urge Members to think about that point when they consider the amendments, including amendment 181 from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank my hon. Friend—another doctor. I would suggest that diabetes cannot be reversed, but can be managed with treatment. All I am trying to do is make sure that that piece is picked up. I think we all agree that we would not expect diabetes to fall within the terminal illness diagnosis.

No fewer than 15 clinicians and medical researchers mentioned diabetes in written evidence. Other conditions are mentioned too. Two consultant physicians—Rosemarie Anthony-Pillai and DP Whitehouse—say that those on medication for heart failure could qualify if they stopped taking their medication. Dr David Randall, a consultant nephrologist at the Royal London Hospital, sets out in written evidence the example of a young man who has benefited from a kidney transplant but stopped his immunosuppression medication. That would lead to transplant rejection and, likely, death within a few months. Would he qualify as terminally ill if we were not to agree to these amendments?

[Lewis Atkinson]

The examples that the hon. Lady gives of the refusal of life-preserving treatment—for example, stopping insulin—would inevitably lead to death, so why does she believe that anyone in such a situation would need to seek voluntary assisted dying?

[Rebecca Paul]

I am sharing the content of written evidence. People working in this arena—medical professionals and clinicians—have taken the time to submit written evidence, which suggests that they see a risk, so this is something that we need to think about. The hon. Gentleman could be right when he asks why someone would seek assisted death in that situation, but it is more about if someone technically qualifies. Obviously, we are still yet to get through the Bill, and there is lots for us to debate, but we want to ensure that people are not put on that pathway if they are not actually terminally ill and their condition can be managed. People could be in a low place, and we need to provide support. This comes back to my point about the balance of best interests. It is really difficult to set the right level, but we need to think about best interests and protect people at their lowest point.

In Oregon, conditions such as anorexia, diabetes, arthritis and hernias have qualified for assisted death, not because they are inherently fatal but because treatment was refused or was unaffordable. We also need to think about situations such as supply chain issues with certain treatments. Situations that we do not want to happen could arise, and we need to think about what that means for this Bill.

Some lawyers and doctors in the US have advised patients on how to bypass the terminal illness criteria by refusing food and water until they become terminal—we have talked about that quite a lot today. There is some evidence of that happening. Cody Sontag, an Oregon woman with early-stage dementia, had few symptoms and was not eligible for assisted death, but after she refused food and water for a few days, her doctor ruled that she met the six-month prognosis requirement.

It is important that we carefully consider young women suffering with eating disorders, but I appreciate we have spoken about that group a lot today, so I will be brief. In Chelsea Roff’s evidence, she set out that at least 60 people around the world have been euthanised or assisted in suicide where anorexia nervosa has been listed by name as a terminal condition. In 100% of the cases, the people were women, a third were between the ages of 18 and 30, and two thirds were under the age of 40. Roff said,

“I have to emphasise that these were young women who did not have failing organs and did not have comorbid terminal conditions…they had decades of life ahead of them.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 139, Q175.]

UK courts have already ruled that treatment can be withdrawn from young women with anorexia, acknowledging that the likely result will be their death, after doctors framed their condition as terminal or untreatable. These examples powerfully demonstrate why it is vital these amendments are accepted, so that these conditions do not lead to a person qualifying for assisted death, if they can be managed sufficiently with treatment. In oral evidence, Dr Miro Griffiths asked us,

“What constitutes six months left to live, particularly if you are engaging with technological devices, medical assistance and so on? For example, I have a progressive condition that continuously makes me weaker and has respiratory complications and so on. If I remove the ventilator that I use at night, if I remove my other medical devices and if I stop my engagement with therapeutic services, does that constitute me having a terminal illness, because my rapid acceleration towards death becomes more evident?”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 142-143, Q179.]

In written evidence, Pathfinders Neuromuscular Alliance warned that for those with conditions like muscular dystrophy, access to treatment is essential. It said,

“It would not be unreasonable therefore to suggest an individual with neuromuscular respiratory failure could die within six months—and yet they might also live 20 to 30 additional years in this state.”

In written evidence, a group of leading physicians and researchers, including experts from John Hopkins University and the Royal College of Psychiatrists said,

“The Bill’s definition of terminal may not adequately distinguish between a condition that is inevitably fatal and one that only becomes terminal without adequate care.”

They added,

“Under this Bill, patients with incurable but treatable conditions could become terminal if they are unable to access timely treatment or choose to forego life-sustaining care.”

It is therefore vital that the definition of terminal illness is tightened to avoid unintended consequences. These amendments would ensure that the Bill applies only to those who are generally at the end of life, without prospect of recovery. I urge the Committee to give consideration to accepting them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I think so. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there is this difficult loophole that somebody may have capacity and be refusing food and drink and would therefore potentially be eligible. In the Bill as it stands, we have an expedited process for people whose prognosis is only a month. There, the 14-day waiting period could be reduced to just 48 hours. If a person stopped eating and drinking, their death would almost certainly happen within a month. In other words, a person who is not terminally ill could make themselves eligible for an assisted death within 48 hours simply by refusing sustenance. It is very important that we recognise that and explicitly exclude it.

I will refer quickly to other jurisdictions where this specific situation occurs and the voluntary stopping of eating and drinking is used to qualify for legal drugs. A peer-reviewed article in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society discusses this case—it may be the one referred to earlier. The authors noted that if anyone can access VSED—voluntary stopping of eating and drinking—then anyone can qualify for medical assistance in dying. In Colorado, 12 people qualified for assisted suicide based on a diagnosis of severe malnutrition.

The American Clinicians Academy on Medical Aid in Dying, an organisation of doctors who provide assisted suicide, acknowledges this loophole. Its guidance states that

“there is nothing in the letter of the law”

to prevent voluntary stopping of eating and drinking from being used in this way. It adds that that would

“essentially eliminate the criteria of terminal illness,”

because a person could always qualify as having terminal illness if they stopped eating and drinking. That is obviously not what the Bill’s sponsor and drafters wish. I hope they will consider accepting the amendment to close that loophole.

I will not repeat points made very eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, but I echo the need to ensure that the Bill is not for conditions that, although they cannot be reversed by treatment, can nevertheless be controlled or substantially slowed. I will therefore support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and to the people he speaks for in tabling amendment 234. I recognise absolutely that the MND Association has pointed out that the six-month rule would not work for all MND sufferers. It successfully persuaded the last Government to change the rules on benefits in recognition of that point, and its evidence to us, it has requested a clear and workable definition for assisted suicide. It was not very clear on what that would be, and there are practical problems with extending to 12 months, specifically the one we have with six months—the difficulty of prognosis, which would be twice as bad. I also refer to the evidence from Professor Sleeman, who made the point that a non-neurologist would find it particularly difficult to make an accurate 12-month prognosis for MND.

The main reason to object to the principle of the amendment—I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is not moving it, but it is an important principle to discuss—is that it makes no sense at all to have two different prognosis periods. Of course, we can see where it will go. The fact that the amendment has been tabled and selected, that it is in scope, and that people will support it in this Committee or beyond, or outside Parliament, is evidence of where things go. We saw it very clearly in the evidence we heard from witnesses from Australia, who pointed out that there is no logical reason to have two prognoses—one for cancer and one for neuro-degenerative disorders. Their response was, “Well, let’s make it 12 months for everyone,” and of course that is the way things would go.

I finish with a tribute to the great quixotic effort of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who is not on the Committee. Runnymede is the home of Magna Carta; the spirit of liberalism lives on in my hon. Friend, a genuine liberal who wants to scrap the period of prognosis altogether, because he genuinely believes in absolute autonomy. I have been trying to make the Bill live up to its claim to be a Bill for safeguarding; he wants it to live up to its claim to be a Bill for autonomy. In principle—in logic—he is absolutely right. If we think that some people should have access to suicide assisted by the state, then why should person A get it and not person B? Needless to say, I disagree with him.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I rise to speak in favour of the current, tightly drawn eligibility criterion of a six-month terminal diagnosis. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West that that was a central plank of the Bill as introduced and as debated across the House on Second Reading. I therefore rise to speak against all the amendments tabled to the clause.

Dying people want to put their affairs in order. That includes thinking about the death that they want and how they want to spend their time with their family. Dying people do not want to die, but they do not have an option to live. I feel that the way we talk about death perhaps has not been fully reflected in the debate we have had on the amendments.

In my mind, the evidence from elsewhere is very clear that those who seek assisted dying seek approval for it, going through the safeguards—significant safeguards, as set out in the Bill—so that they can spend the remaining time with their family, with enhanced feelings of control and autonomy, removing some of the fear that causes them to ask, “What if I will have no way out of inevitable pain?” That does not mean, of course, that people wish to die more quickly. The fact that the Bill sets out a six-month eligibility criterion does not mean that people will rush to end their own lives as soon as it is possible to do so. It means that six months is the threshold at which they can start potentially exploring the options and getting through the onerous—rightly onerous—process of eight different stages of capacity checks, three different stages of approval, multiple doctors and so on, so that they have the option. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley set out earlier, a significant proportion of people who have been approved for assisted dying elsewhere do not take up that option, because their end of life is not painful—and that is fantastic—or can be managed through palliative care. That is something that we would all want. However, knowing that they have the option significantly increases their quality of life, their ability to relax with their families and their ability to spend time with their loved ones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I agree with what he says about autonomy. As I said earlier, autonomy does not necessarily have to lead to pain, and it could be that I do not want to get to that stage. People will never know whether they could have lived longer. Does he not agree?

[Lewis Atkinson]

Sensible amendments have been tabled elsewhere in the Bill—not to the clause that we are debating—that would strengthen the initial conversations and ensure that people make informed decisions and have access to, and conversations about, all the forms of support, psychological or otherwise. I think that those will address my hon. Friend’s point.

In terms of the eligibility criteria, Chris Whitty was clear that there is diagnostic uncertainty in both directions. He said that

“a significant minority of people die before they actually get to the point”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 37, Q15.]

of the six-month prognosis. Because of that uncertainty, if we attempted to make the criterion much less than six months, we would end up excluding people. From all the conversations I have had, it is clear that once people have a terminal diagnosis, they want to put their affairs in order; doing so means that they can enjoy their final months with their families. We must not reduce eligibility and limit access to those whose disease unfortunately progresses more quickly than they would like and the prognosis suggests. I therefore oppose amendment 48, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West.

The amendment talks about “recommended treatment”. In all my years in the NHS, shared decision making has been a key principle. No one other than the person in question can make the decision about what trade-off they are willing to accept. Invasive chemotherapy may have a 20% chance of elongating my life. Am I willing to accept a 20% chance? Am I willing to accept a 30% chance? What I decide is right for me may be different from what other individuals decide, so a doctor is not in a position to say, “You should accept this because it will give you a 10% chance,” or, “It will give you a certain level of pain that I’m willing to accept.” We each have to make those decisions ourselves.

[Naz Shah]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Lewis Atkinson]

No, I will make some progress.

I feel that the amendment risks pressuring people to accept courses of intervention against their will, and I do not think it is consistent with the important principles of autonomy and consent. Because of the safeguards, approvals and reflection periods built into the Bill, going through the process of approval will clearly take in excess of a month. That is why amendment 282, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, which would limit the eligibility to one month, is fundamentally not compatible with the safeguards in the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley made clear. To me, six months is absolutely the right balance. It reflects people’s wish to put their affairs in order and allows for prognostic uncertainty on the downside—someone given six months may actually only have two or three months to live—but it still allows the operation of robust safeguards and reflection periods.

I turn briefly to the other amendments. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe for the points she made. I share the concern that replacing “inevitably” with “typically” would risk weakening the definition of “terminal illness” and expanding access to other conditions. I fear that “typically progressive” is a weaker interpretation, so I cannot support the change, because I support a tightly drawn Bill with tightly drawn eligibility criteria. For the same reason, although I have sympathy for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, I think it goes beyond the scope of what the House discussed in November and the contours of the current debate.

Amendments 9 and 10 refer to disease being controlled or substantially slowed. Those are not recognised medico-legal terms. What is the definition of “substantially slowed”? Who would define it? Is it something that takes 20%, 50% or 100% longer? We talk about the risk of inserting undefined terms and of court interpretation, and I fear that introducing such an amendment would give rise to that.

The people best placed to make decisions about whether the treatment will suitably slow the progression of the disease are the dying people themselves. They are the only people who should do that—fully informed, of course, by their medical and clinical teams. Each of us, when the end is nigh—it will come to me, as it will to us all—has to make that decision ourselves, not on the basis of a recommendation mandated in law or some definition of “controlled” or “substantially slowed”. It feels that the legislature would be putting in primary legislation decisions that I should make about the treatment that I should accept, so I am not in favour of those amendments.

I finish with reference to amendment 402. Although earlier I wanted to make progress, I do not want to rule out any further interventions, if my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West or others would like to come in. I recognise the concern, and we need to talk about people with anorexia with the respect, dignity and seriousness they deserve. I have heard it said—I think my hon. Friend said it—that there is nothing in the Bill to stop that being the case, and I fundamentally disagree for many reasons. First, as the Bill sets out, capacity is checked eight times. The Court of Protection has repeatedly found that people with anorexia do not have the capacity to make decisions about stopping eating. Although a best interest test may have been made, that is not relevant, as set out in the Bill. People have to have the capacity to request an assisted death, checked eight times. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has already set out that she is minded to accept—or will accept—amendment 6 to clause 9(3)(b), so that, if there is any doubt about capacity, a psychiatric opinion “must” be sought.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, I considered the written evidence saying that, in instances of a patient with anorexia, psychiatric input is absolutely necessary. Absolutely—in every case where someone has anorexia, under an amended clause 9, psychiatric opinion must be sought as to capacity. That is before we get to the further set of amendments to clause 12.

[Naz Shah]

In the cases that went before the court, the judges, in nine out of 10 cases, found that all those young ladies did indeed have capacity to refuse their food, and it was as a result of that that their deaths became inevitable. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

[Lewis Atkinson]

That is not my understanding, and I have sought some clarification, including from Professor Hoyano, who provided oral evidence to us, and I believe that that was not her understanding either.

Given the “must” in clause 9 regarding psychiatric referral to a third tier panel—which, let us remind ourselves, is not in place in any of these jurisdictions from which figures are cited around potential deaths of people with anorexia—I feel there are significant safeguards. Furthermore, we have just agreed to amendment 399 tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, clarifying the “medical condition” piece, which provides a further safeguard.

I respect the need for us to consider these matters carefully, but I urge a degree of holistic thinking when we talk about individual clauses. Some of the statements being made—that there are no protections in place—just do not fly, to me, given the Bill as a whole.

[Dr Tidball]

My hon. Friend is correct in his interpretation of the judgments in those cases, but does he agree that the evidence given by Chris Whitty to clarify his statement was helpful in clarifying that the application of the test for capacity is heavily orientated towards the gravity and complexity of the decisions to be made? That is also underpinned, as my hon. Friend underlined, by the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I do, and I thank my hon. Friend for bringing my attention to that; I was struggling to put my hands on it.

In my view, clause 2 does a difficult job very well in tightly drawing eligibility criteria so that the Bill does what it says on the face of it—that it allows access for terminally ill adults, at the end of their life. By having a six-month prognosis, rather than anything else, it allows individuals to put their lives in order and have the best last months of their lives possible. I therefore speak against the amendments and in favour of the clause as drafted.

[Stephen Kinnock]

As usual, I will make brief remarks on the legal and practical impact of amendments, while emphasising that the Government continue to remain neutral on the Bill and on assisted dying more broadly. This series of amendments, which I will take in turn, seeks to change the definition of “terminally ill”, either widening or narrowing the cohort of people able to access assisted dying services.

Amendment 123 would change what it is to be “terminally ill” for the purposes of the Bill from having an “inevitably” to a “typically” progressive illness, disease or medical condition that cannot be reversed by treatment. That would widen the pool of those able to access assisted dying services by reducing the level of certainty that a doctor must have that the illness, disease or medical condition in question is progressive—from one that is “inevitably” progressive to one that is “typically” progressive.

Amendment 9 seeks to amend the definition of “terminally ill” such that it would not include a person who has an inevitably progressive illness, disease or medical condition that can be reversed, controlled or substantially slowed by treatment. The effect of the amendment is that such a person would not be eligible for lawful assistance to voluntarily end their own life. Should the amendment be accepted, the effect would be to restrict the eligibility for assisted dying services to a narrower category of patients than is currently set out in the Bill. The amendment may make assessment of a person’s prognosis and eligibility under the Bill more extensive, as it would be likely to require an assessment of a broader range of treatment options.

--- Later in debate ---

My concern throughout this debate has been that we are at risk of passing a skeleton Bill. It is a long Bill, because it is complicated, but actually the key questions about how it will operate in practice—what conditions would be eligible, what drugs would be used—will often be determined not by Parliament, but either by Ministers using the negative procedure or, as in this case, simply by the panel and by doctors. If we are serious about safeguards and about preventing the slippery slope, let us insist that the Bill specifies that any further expansion or evolution is determined not out there, but in here. Let Parliament be the sovereign power that determines what is eligible and what is not.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I rise to speak briefly in opposition to the amendments. When the chief medical officer gave oral evidence to the Committee, the hon. Member for Richmond Park asked him:

“Is it possible to come up with a list of illnesses that are terminal that would qualify under the legislation?”

The response was very clear:

“If I am honest, I think it would be extremely difficult.”

It is difficult in both directions, because some illnesses or diseases can be terminal, but are not necessarily terminal. People can live with prostate cancer for many years. Setting out in the Bill a list of specific diseases or illnesses that would be eligible risks achieving exactly the opposite of the amendment’s intention. To quote Professor Whitty again:

“Equally, there are people who may not have a single disease that is going to lead to the path to death, but they have multiple diseases interacting…I therefore think it is quite difficult to specify that certain diseases are going to cause death and others are not, because in both directions that could be misleading.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 32, Q5.]

Further to the point that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire made about on judicial oversight, my understanding is that giving power to the Secretary of State to make a list that includes only some diseases is absolutely inviting action through the courts on the reasonableness of why one disease is on the list while others are not. We would end up in much more of a legal quagmire than we otherwise would. The safeguards that we have talked about, as to eligibility criteria, terminality and capacity, are in the Bill as drafted. Those are the safeguards that we need. A list would further muddy the water and would create confusion.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I have some brief comments to make. Amendments 12 and 13 seek to further define a terminal illness for the purpose of the Bill; I will set out some details about their effect. The amendments would add a requirement that a list of a terminal illnesses for which people are eligible to seek assistance under the Bill be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. The effect would be that only a person who has an illness, disease or medical condition listed in regulations, and who meets the other eligibility criteria, would be eligible to be provided with lawful assistance to voluntarily end their own life.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the chief medical officer’s oral evidence given on 28 January, which was well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central. The CMO said that multiple diseases may interact, making it

“quite difficult to specify that certain diseases are going to cause death and others are not”.––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 32, Q5.]

It is also the case that many illnesses, diseases or conditions that may be terminal in one case may not be so in another. Committee members may therefore wish to consider where a focus on specific illnesses or diseases, rather than on the facts of an individual case, could aid clinicians in their decision making.

The amendments also include a discretionary power for the Secretary of State to make regulations that expire after 12 months in order to make temporary additions to the list of illnesses that meet the definition of terminal. It is not clear what types of illnesses, diseases or medical conditions are intended to be captured in such regulations. I hope that those observations on the purpose and effect of amendments 12 and 13 are helpful to the Committee in its considerations.

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

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I am sorry but we have to move on.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Q Can I be explicit on the palliative care point? We have heard concerns from some in palliative care provision that there is anxiety that if we introduce this in the UK, there is a risk of deterioration in or failure to improve palliative care. Can you address that directly in the light of your experience?

Dr Mewett: I will say one thing briefly. Palliative Care Australia, which is our peak body, commissioned a report a few years back that studied the introduction of voluntary assisted dying legislation throughout the jurisdictions of the world. It concluded—this is a body that was not pro-VAD—that there was no adverse impact on palliative care services; indeed, it was often the contrary. Palliative care services were actually strengthened and enhanced because of the emphasis now being placed on more choices at the end of life. So I think that is an absolute furphy, as we say in Australia—you might say a red herring.

Palliative care services are not in any detriment. In fact, I would go on to say that this idea that palliative care doctors will leave in their droves if such legislation is introduced is just false. We respect conscientious objection in this space, and we have learned to live with each other and respect that people are entitled to set their own ethical limits.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

Q Are you aware of any reported incidents of the misuse of medication that has been administered? As you explained earlier, patients can take the medication to their home.

Dr McLaren: We were made aware of one situation in Queensland last year. The eligible patient was given the medication, but they ended up in hospital and died from their disease. Their husband then went home, took the voluntary assisted dying medication and died. That was obviously a tragedy and no one wants that to occur, so I do not want to be flippant in talking about it, and I hope my comments are taken in the way they are intended.

We know that spousal suicides occur when people die, and we have had one case across Australia compared with thousands of successful cases of voluntary assisted dying conduct. No other cases have been evidenced, so the rate of that is incredibly low. The voluntary assisted dying team in Queensland, on the same day that they became aware of that case, put in steps to ensure that it would not happen again, which I believe included the required return of the medication.

We also have to balance the autonomy of having the medication available to patients at 2 in the morning, when they have an exacerbation of their pain and say that enough is enough, instead of waiting for business hours when the doctors are available to come and sit with them. It is a very delicate balance and there will always be that risk. I think the balance is struck well and the safety can be upheld by still providing the patients access to their own medication.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

Actually, my question has already been asked.

Chelsea Roff: May I respond briefly? I want to address the question. I know it is not your intention for eating disorders to be included in this Bill, and I am grateful for that. When I started our research, I thought, “We just need stronger safeguards.” That was where I began, and after looking at 33 jurisdictions around the world, I have real doubt about whether safeguards are enough; I know how difficult it is to put it on the page, and I am seeing it expand and be applied through interpretation. I disagree with Professor Shakespeare, respectfully, that diabetes is a reversible condition. You cannot go back in time and reverse that condition.

I agree that you are doing this for a noble purpose, and there are members of my family that want this Bill to go through, and yet I emphasise to all of you on the Committee that the question before you is: could this Bill have knock-on effects for some of your most vulnerable constituents? How many deaths are you okay with? If the safeguards fail once, that is a human being who maybe, in a despairing moment, was handed a lethal medication instead of the care, the treatment and the help they needed. That is what we are talking about. You really have to get this right, because those people are depending on you.

[Lewis Atkinson]

Q Mr Amin, given your expertise in representing these cases in the court, can I ask you for your view around the Mental Capacity Act issue regarding eating disorders and other disorders? Obviously, we have heard one version of that. Given your experience of working with UK law to the highest level, what is your assessment of this?

Yogi Amin: I have worked in a range of medical treatment cases over many years, covering different illnesses and conditions, and clause 2 reads fine to me. It works. It is clear. I do not consider that it needs any additional words. I can understand, when we go to court, that cases will come through and they will fall within those definitions, and it will be clear. I do not consider anorexia to come under a terminal illness unless it is right at the end of life, and that does not really fit within the parameters of the Bill, because we are not talking about right at the end of life. We have section 63 of the Mental Health Act, which deals with anorexia, and there is force-feeding that clinicians consider. That is my view on the anorexia side of things.

Doctors will provide the evidence on terminal illness. You heard from the chief medical officer yesterday, and they will provide guidance around all of that. Subsequent to the Bill, there will be secondary legislation and then the guidance. They will provide clear guidance that will then feed into this and the evidence that will be before a judge that says, “Yes, it is a terminal illness, and this is the prognosis” and so on. It is nothing different from what we produce in medical treatment cases before the court at the moment, where the doctors produce expert reports and give evidence. They explain the condition, the prognosis and their decision on capacity, and they explain what is in the best interests of an individual if they lack capacity. As I understand it, the Bill is crafted to produce the evidence as you go along the path here, and then eventually to the judge.

Chelsea Roff: May I add one sentence, because it is related to eating disorders? I would refer to a 2012 Court of Protection case, where a 29-year-old with anorexia was described as being in the terminal stage of her illness and multiple physicians described her death as inevitable. I would also refer to a 2023 case seen at the Court of Protection, which said, “I recognise with deep regret that it will probably mean that she will die.” She was also described as being at the “pre-death stage”. Again, that young woman is still alive and still fighting for services. Although I respect what Mr Amin is saying, and I agree with his interpretation, we have case law in the UK where people with anorexia are being found to be terminal. We have to take that reality into account.

Yogi Amin: I do not think they were found to be terminal. They were described by a doctor in a case as being terminal, and that doctor may not have described it properly.

Chelsea Roff: Indeed, but a judge will be relying on doctors.

[The Chair]

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

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money)

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Money resolution
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Colleagues will know that I put forward a reasoned amendment on Second Reading. In that amendment, and in my speech in that debate, I set out some of my concerns about how the private Member’s Bill process does not allow for sufficient scrutiny to develop complex legislation on such a sensitive matter. Indeed, such a once-in-a-generation approach to suicide, death and dying and these changes need to be looked at independently and in a formal public consultation.

This House was given reassurances, both by the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), and the Leader of the House, in the light of which some colleagues voted for the Bill on Second Reading to allow the process to proceed. As part of that, reassurances were given about an impact assessment, which would have included an estimate of costs. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister has given assurances that an impact assessment is forthcoming, but we do not yet have it. As a result, we are very unclear at this point how much assisted dying would cost to implement.

I therefore seek clarification from the Minister and others involved on a number of questions. Will assisted dying be offered free on the NHS? How many people do we estimate will expect to exercise their right under the Bill? There are a wide range of estimates out there, based on overseas jurisdictions.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Anna Dixon]

No; I have very little time.

How much will it cost for the additional doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals? How much time will be required to do a proper consultation? What about the lengthy paperwork? Will new clinics be set up, or will existing facilities be repurposed? What will be the costs of the lethal drugs? What about the oversight by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and other regulators? What about the training for healthcare professionals involved in the process, and the cost of oversight by the chief medical officer and the Registrar General, and any new data systems required?

It is clear that palliative and end of life care is in desperate need of investment; some 100,000 people die each year who could benefit from end of life care but do not receive it. If assisted dying is to be implemented, it is essential that there is equitable and free access to hospice care, so how much additional funding would be provided to hospices for palliative and end of life care under this money resolution or from elsewhere?

I fully support this Government’s commitment to fixing the NHS, establishing a national care service and providing additional investment, as they have already shown, to hospices. However, I would like the Minister to provide clarification to assist our understanding because, given our inheritance from the Conservative party, I am concerned like others that funding for assisted dying risks diverting essential resources away from end of life care, other NHS services and social care. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

There is no more important function for Members of this House than that of being the guardians of public money. It is very hard to equate the performance of that function with signing a blank cheque, and yet that is what we are being asked to do today. One thing is abundantly clear: if this Bill passes, it will bring with it a huge financial burden in perpetuity.

[Lewis Atkinson]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Allister]

I would be happy to do so in a moment.

It is quite clear that the measures will impose huge costs on the health and justice budgets. Given the provisions in the Bill, is it impossible for that not to be the consequence, so when the Treasury Minister produces the financial information, will he include current Government expenditure on palliative care and suicide prevention, so that we can look at and balance what we are spending? The Bill invites the Government to move from funding charities to prevent suicide to becoming facilitators and providers of suicide.

NHS Backlog

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I welcome this debate, although we have had a number of health debates over the past few sitting days that have crystallised the real problem that we see in the NHS. It is stark that none of the Government Members have mentioned covid thus far and its massive impact. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) is pointing at herself; she might have mentioned it, but she did not set out the absolute devastation that covid wreaked on our services.

Before I came to the House, I worked for the Getting It Right First Time programme, an NHS England programme that was initially funded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt) when he was Health Secretary, and again when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The programme made a significant difference in getting rid of “unwarranted variation” within the NHS, because while there is some amazing service, treatment and patient care in the NHS, we have to admit that there is also some poor and inefficient patient care.

The Getting It Right First Time programme tried to improve patient care and ensure that the worst-performing trusts were brought up to the level of the best-performing trusts; I hope that the programme will continue to try to achieve that under the current Government. Areas for improvement include high-volume, low-complexity work, such as cataract, hip and knee operations. There are massive backlogs of such procedures in the NHS that could be cleared if some failing trusts reached the level not of the top-performing trusts, but of the top quartile, or the top 10%.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman worked in the NHS before covid, as did I. He mentions the impact of covid, but does he not recall that in December 2019, before covid hit, standards had already fallen, and only 84% of patients were being treated within the 18 week target? Why was that allowed to happen under the previous Government?

[Gregory Stafford]

I accept that the pressure on the NHS went way beyond covid, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, but to use the Secretary of State’s term, covid was the point at which the NHS was “broken”, and it is taking a long time to recover.

The Government are right to push for more localised services, and to bring services closer to the patient. Access to GPs is a fundamental part of that, but we know that GPs are overstretched. The previous Government really pushed Pharmacy First, which was a superb programme. This Government want to go further with it, but there are disincentives for general practitioners to embrace Pharmacy First. What will Ministers do to ensure that there is no financial disincentive to work with pharmacies? If we are to deal with the backlog, there has to be a financial incentive.

What was concerning about today’s statement from the Secretary of State was the lack of genuine reform. There was a lot of rehashing of previous policies, perhaps eking them out a tad further than the previous Conservative Government did, but I think the Secretary of State himself said that if anyone is able to reform the NHS, it is a Labour Government. While I was quite interested in what he was saying as shadow Secretary of State, I have been deeply disappointed by what he has said since. It appears to me that unfortunately the union paymasters and the inertia in the NHS have captured him and his Front Bench. I hope that I am wrong, and that the Minister will tell me differently this evening, but that is what I have seen.

Locally, the reality is that there is a problem with being able to bring services closer to home. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) mentioned the problem of accountability for ICBs. I have the fortune, or misfortune, depending on how one looks at it, of having three ICBs in my constituency. To use a previously mentioned term, there is a lot of unwarranted variation in how they deal with my constituents, and with me as a Member of Parliament. A big issue in Bordon is that we want a brand new surgery in the area, but there has been no conversation with the ICB about how that might go ahead. Likewise, we are really keen for Haslemere hospital to move from being a district hospital to having an urgent treatment centre. It is vital that we get that moving. The community hospital in Farnham could also be somewhere treatment is done closer to home. I urge the Government not to sit back, but to use their majority and reform the NHS for the benefit of all our constituents.

Winter Preparedness

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot talk about individual cases from the Dispatch Box, but we will be making announcements on that subject very shortly.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement, and also thank my recent former NHS colleagues, especially those in Sunderland, for what they will be doing over the winter. The Minister has rightly highlighted unacceptable levels of bed occupancy as we go into winter; we know that as bed occupancy increases to unacceptable levels, there is a rise in patient safety risks. What assessment has she made of the patient safety monitoring regime over the winter, linked to those risks?

[Karin Smyth]

We have made it absolutely clear, as did the NHS in its letter today, that patient safety is the watchword this winter. We have targets in relation to monitoring the performance of the system, but we absolutely want to ensure that patients are kept safe as we go through the next few months.