Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

It would be unprecedented to put a formal time limit on speeches. Please can Members listen to the stricture that we are very short on time? I call Lizzi Collinge.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I had intended to speak about new clauses 1 and 10, but I will restrict myself to new clause 1 for the sake of time. New clause 1 says:

“No health professional shall raise assisted dying…unless that person has first raised it.”

If the patient does not mention the issue and specifically ask for it, the doctor would be entirely prohibited from even mentioning it. That is problematic for many reasons. It goes against good medical practice, and is actively opposed by the British Medical Association. For me, the new clause would undermine the hard-won rights of people to be fully informed of their medical options, and would make the application of the Bill unfair and unequal, to the detriment of marginalised people in particular.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

Just this week, the Health and Social Care Committee heard from vulnerable service-users who talked about white coat syndrome—that people are more likely to be pushed into options when given them by medical professionals. That is the concern behind the amendment. I do not know how I will vote on the Bill, but I am minded to support the amendment because of what I have heard from people from vulnerable communities.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Interventions also need to be brief.

[Lizzi Collinge]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will expand on this, but that is exactly why good medical practice requires all options to be on the table. Patients should not be influenced by the opinions, whether philosophical or medical, of a doctor; they should be able to give full and informed consent. I believe that new clause 1 would chill those discussions, and limit the option of an assisted death to those already in the know, those who are the most medically literate, and those who are often the least marginalised in society. It would result in unequal access to a legal process, and flies in the face of good medical practice, which has moved away from the paternalism that harmed patients and took away their individual control. After many years of fighting, mainly by women and marginalised communities, it is now established that good healthcare practice means patients having full information to make their own decisions.

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I am mindful of time, so I will continue.

Why, then, would we now choose, as a House, to hide from patients information about their options? For so many years, people have been put through that. Informed consent to treatment, including end of life care, is informed only when it includes all options. There is also the practical element of what would count as a patient raising it first. Would they have to make a specific statement? Would they have to use specific language? It would create a legal and medical minefield for doctors and patients.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I am very mindful of time, so I will finish with this point. Colleagues may wish to look at the NHS constitution, which says:

“You have the right to be involved in planning and making decisions about your health and care with your care provider or providers, including your end of life care, and to be given information and support to enable you to do this.”

That can be the case only if people are given the full information. All people should have access to full information on matters of care. To do otherwise is to deny people their decision—it is paternalistic, and we should move away from that model. People have fought so hard for that to happen.

We have a chance today, colleagues, to ensure that the legislation is the best it can be. It has been a pleasure to listen to the contributions of colleagues across the Chamber. I am minded to support the amended Bill on Third Reading, because the current situation for terminally ill people, with no safeguards, no protection and no choice, is absolutely unsupportable.