Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Meg Hillier and Simon Opher

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 1 and 2, which stand in my name, and consequential amendment 2, and I will touch on others at the end. These amendments—without being dismissive of those who helped me draft them—are imperfect. Those of us who are not the promoter of the Bill have not had the support of Government drafters in tidying up the Bill. We need to acknowledge that the Bill in front of us today is the Bill—more or less—that will or will not be passed by this House. For any amendments made, by the point of Third Reading, that is it—there will be no further opportunity to redraft them.

Sadly, one of these amendments was rejected in Committee. If those changes had been discussed before the original Bill was published, or even in evidence before Committee, we would have been in a better place to get that tighter drafting that is needed in making good legislation. We are not a debating society; we are now legislating for a law that would enable the state to assist in people taking their lives. I am sad that we are able to discuss these amendments only now. I did not get the opportunity to be on the Bill Committee, but I commend all Members who spend so many hours discussing and debating those issues.

The ramifications of the clauses I want to talk about are important for potential users of a service, for medical professionals, for families and for other health professionals. The Bill currently allows doctors to suggest assisted dying to a patient who has not raised it themselves. This, I believe—as I know many others do—presents a serious risk that terminally ill patients, already highly vulnerable, will feel pressured to end their lives.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I realise that my hon. Friend’s new clause 1 comes from a good place, but can she not see that it is inconsistent with our ethical obligations as doctors? That is why the British Medical Association has suggested that although there should be no duty to raise the issue, neither should there be a ban on doing so. I ask her to consider that the Australian state of Victoria initially had such a measure—a so-called gagging clause—as part of its Bill, but it was removed because it caused confusion and was detrimental to patient care. Should we not learn from that?