Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate, and the way in which the House has conducted itself on both sides of the argument is a credit to this place.

I stand here not only as a medical practitioner who worked as a surgeon for about a decade, but also as a healthcare barrister, so I have looked at the debate from both sides of the argument. I have been deeply moved by some of the stories I have heard about patients who are facing a terminal illness. I am also instructed by my own experiences—my personal experiences of my relatives, and of those patients whom I failed. I failed because I did not give them the good death that they deserved, despite the very best efforts of palliative care.

It is true that we can improve the palliative care offering in this country, but it is not a binary choice. It is not a choice of palliative care or assisted dying; it is a choice about someone having an option over how they want autonomy over their body at the end of their life. I understand the concerns raised in this House—I genuinely do—but this is not the point to cancel the debate. This is the point to engage in the debate. This is the point at which we move it forward, so that people can contribute to it in Committee and say how things can be improved, and so that we can work together to make a societal change, improve our society and support those who want that ultimate choice in those last days.

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

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Order. We are now in formal session, so I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that in formal session we refer to Members by their constituencies and not by their names. I am the only person who uses names, because I can never remember constituencies.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

I, too, commend the hon. Member for Spen Valley for her efforts in pulling together this list; it is an unenviable task, given the number of contributions that were made.

It is important that we do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. There is a wide range of individuals and organisations that we would all benefit from hearing from, but given the time available to the Committee—which is much more extensive than most private Members’ Bills have, by some margin—we are not in a position to hear oral evidence from all of them. But there is an open invitation for everyone to contribute written evidence and for us, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire noted, to speak to engaged parties outside the Committee to feed into our thought processes and deliberations.

On the amendments tabled, I understand the reasons for amendment (b) on the Royal College of Psychiatrists, but I have to say that I disagree. The hon. Member for Bradford West said it was about coercion. I could understand if she were making an argument that we need to hear from the Royal College of Surgeons about the issue of capacity, so I do not think that this is universally confined to psychiatrists; it is something, as a surgeon, I dealt with every day when I was getting consent for operations. We have to think about how we get a wide range of opinions on the subject: we have the Chief Medical Officer, who can comment on such issues from a policy perspective; we have the BMA, which I am sure will send representatives who will be most able to deal with the questions that are to be asked; and, of course, we have the General Medical Council, which is the ultimate regulator and arbitrator of this issue.

The Committee is also about ensuring that this legislation is as fit and as robust as possible when it goes back to the House for consideration. That is where I think that having a legislator from a jurisdiction in which this has been implemented is crucial. Not having the member for Sydney in the New South Wales Parliament—where they have implemented this, and have dealt with some of the thorny issues that the Committee and subsequently the House will have to deal with—would be a mistake. Likewise, having more geriatricians and palliative care physicians is a better balance than having those with some other expertise—well-meaning as they may be, they are not necessarily dealing with this at the coalface. I do not support the amendments for those reasons.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I will not speak for long. I merely echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said: this is not an arms race. It is not about who can get more experts with different views; it is about trying to get a wide-ranging and broad sense of different aspects of the Bill. The list that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has produced does that. I made suggestions that are not on it, by the way, but as the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley says, we cannot let perfection be the enemy of the good.

I want to push back briefly on some things that have been said about the lawyers and legal experts. I do not accept what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire says about whether they are for or against, and I am not sure that his numbers tally with my reading of their views. That goes to the subjectivity of this issue. It is not black and white; lots of people have complex views on it.

I am not sure whether amendment (g) was moved, but in any event the notion that issues such as ECHR compatibility cannot be handled by Lord Sumption, Lord Neuberger and Baroness Hale—three former Supreme Court judges and potentially the best legal minds of their generation—is frankly absurd. We all have roles and responsibilities, as members of this Committee and as Members of Parliament, to challenge their evidence and to push different cases. I have no doubt that we are all qualified and able enough to do so without hearing from a junior barrister and a junior lecturer. That is not in any way to belittle their expertise, because I have read endless commentary from both the suggested witnesses that is very valuable and could be put to the three former Supreme Court justices, who grappled with such cases time and again.

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

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you very much. For broadcast purposes, can everyone make sure that they are as loud and clear as possible?

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Q Good morning, gentlemen. The initial discussion is dealt with in clause 4 of the Bill. There has been some significant concern about whether doctors should be initiating that conversation with patients who are terminally ill. The Bill states, in subsection (1):

“No registered medical practitioner is under any duty to raise the subject of provision”.

What are your views on the compatibility of that element of the Bill with the principles under Montgomery consent?

Dr Green: Both of these items came about because of things that were in our policy, and we are pleased to see them in the Bill. You are right that assisted dying must not become just another tick-box thing that doctors mention to patients. That must not happen, and that is why we believe that it should not fall within those two Supreme Court judgements that you mentioned. But there is another side to that coin: we think that there are some circumstances in which doctors should be able to mention this to their patients.

I will just explain why that might happen. The consultation shows that some patients find it very difficult to bring up sensitive subjects with their doctors, even when those are the most important thing on their mind. Doctors are aware of that, and I hope that we get very good at reading between the lines of what patients say to get at what is left unsaid. In those circumstances, we need to be able to open the door for the patient, so they can go into a safe space and have those difficult discussions. That is what we are talking about here.

As a clinician, it is very difficult to know when to have those conversations. When we are battling with that internally, the last thing we would want is to feel the weight of legislation behind us, so please do not pass legislation that makes it harder for doctors to understand their patients. That is why it is important that in particular circumstances we should be able to gently raise the subject.

Mark Swindells: The GMC sets guidance on decision making and consent, as you will know. That is based on the existing law, including the case law on Montgomery, so it puts a lot of weight on the patient’s autonomy, the patient’s role and the doctor’s role in supporting that in the provision of information on different options, including the option of no treatment. Our guidance follows the law, so were the law to change, we would look at it and accommodate. We do not have a formulated view on what the eligibility should be, but we know the BMA’s stance.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Q Has the GMC undertaken a legal assessment of the openness to legal challenge around that Montgomery point—if those conversations were not initiated and patients say that they were not given all the options available to them?

Mark Swindells: We have not done a forensic legal assessment of that nature, but obviously Montgomery is in case law, and Parliament has the power to set primary law. I listened to what the chief medical officer said and what Dr Green says about how restrictive or otherwise that might be in terms of the doctor’s role with the patient.

[Jack Abbott]

Q This might sound like playing devil’s advocate, and I fully appreciate that you do not want to reduce this to a tick-box exercise, as you described it. Some might argue that the risk of what you describe is that it creates a lottery, because you would be relying on doctors to use their personal judgment as to when to have that conversation. For example, if a patient and doctor do not have a particularly close or long-standing relationship, the doctor may not know what the signs are, so the patient, who may need to have that conversation, may never have it. The risk is that you would be reliant on good relationships forming over time and doctors using their intuition, so that some patients will have the conversations they need but others will not.

Dr Green: Obviously, it would be great if we worked in a system where doctors had all the time they needed to deal with their patients. I believe that the Bill mentions a duty to provide information from the chief medical officer, and having read the Bill, to me it seems very much like this might be in the form of a website or leaflet. We believe that it is important that patients should be able to access personalised information, and we would like to see an official information service that patients could go to, either as a self-referral or as a recommendation from their GPs or other doctors. That would give them information not just about assisted dying, but about all the other things that bother people at this stage of their life, and it would mention social services support and palliative care. It could be like a navigation service as much as an information service. That might address some of your concerns.

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

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

Q I have a question for James Sanderson and one for Dr Clarke. They are quite similar, but I will refer to things you have said. James, you said:

“Sadly, only half the people who need palliative care receive it.”

In your opinion, who are the people who receive palliative, and who does do not?

My question to Dr Clarke is similar. You have talked about the population being

“carved up into two groups…those who deserve to live and those are expendable”.

Could you expand on that quote and the two groups you referred to, as well as the impact that has on their treatment and care?

James Sanderson: You draw a really important point about not just the provision and totality of palliative care across the country but the inequity of access. Unfortunately, we find that the diversity of people who are accessing care in hospices across the country is less than those who are dying in hospital—43% of people currently die in hospital.

One of the things we really need to do is move to a new ecosystem of palliative care that looks at supporting people in different settings. We need specialist provision in hospices to support people with significant needs, but increasingly hospices are reaching out beyond their walls into the community, and 80% of Sue Ryder’s work is in people’s own homes. People tell us that they want to die at home, so supporting people in their own homes enables us to access more diverse communities and get to people in their own setting.

Increasingly, one of the things we feel is necessary is the provision of support inside hospital. Alongside wards, we would bring support to that 43% of people who are currently dying in hospital, to ensure there is equality of access in all places, both in in-patient settings and in the community. You draw a really important point that we have to look at the totality of provision and ensure that, when someone is offered palliative care—the Bill talks about that provision being available—there is universal access, in terms of the type of palliative care available and the access for everybody in society.

Dr Clarke: My comment refers to the fact that there is an immense gulf between the theory of the NHS being a cradle-to-grave service—or a service that cares for us at the end of life as it does at the start—and the reality. The reality that I see every day at work in my hospital is patients coming into the emergency department from the community sometimes in utter, abject misery, in agony, with a lack of dignity. They have been forgotten completely. They are not getting healthcare or social care, and no one cares about them.

Even in the hospital, patients who have a terminal diagnosis are sometimes cast out into the corners of the hospital. There are hospitals, and mine is one currently, where we do not even have a 24/7 palliative care service face to face. Every night in my hospital, and every weekend from Friday to Monday, you cannot see a palliative care nurse or doctor, despite the fact that for a number of years that has been an NHS standard. That is an absolute disgrace and it shows how little people who are dying are truly cared for in a civilised society.

It does not necessarily have anything to do with assisted dying, except that if we do not address that simultaneously, some of those people will “choose” to end their life, because we as a society do not care about them enough to give them the care that might make life worth living. Surely that is a travesty for Britain.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Q I have a question for Dr Clarke and Dr Cox about the registration of deaths, which is dealt with in clause 29. Do you feel that the provisions set out in the clause are sufficient? If not, what further bolstering would provide the oversight needed to ensure that the processes and procedures are followed correctly?

Dr Cox: My understanding of the plan is that in the Bill—forgive me, but I am sketchy on this—the aim is for the registration to be as a natural death. It would not be referred to the coroner, and “assisted dying” would appear on the death certificate.

I am also a medical examiner. My concern is that, as a medical examiner, I am obliged by law to scrutinise all deaths to ensure that a referral to the coroner is not required and to identify any learnings. What concerns me in that role is whether enough recording is happening around decision making and the process to do my job properly. With my medical examiner hat on, do I know what happened? I do not see anything written down in the Bill about the records that are to be kept. What happened when the patient took the substance? What happened afterwards? Were any actions taken in the meantime? That is not so much something I have thought about a lot with my palliative care consultant hat on, but as a medical examiner it concerns me.

Dr Clarke: For the sake of time, I do not have anything to add. I completely agree with that.

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q Dr Cox, may I follow up on one of the things you said earlier? Forgive me if I have misunderstood; I want to be clear. Earlier, I think you said that in the countries that do not have assisted dying, the state of palliative care has improved more quickly than in countries that do. Is that a fair representation of what you said?

Dr Cox: In European countries and American states.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Francis]

Q Alex, in paragraph 8 of your written evidence you touch on clauses 9, 15 and 18 of the Bill and the potential complications that could arise when the substance is taken. Could you expand on the concerns you have about that?

Alex Ruck Keene: I should make it absolutely clear that all I am trying to do is make sure that whatever law is passed is a good law and has as few inadvertent consequences as possible. My concern here arises out of the fact that understandably the proponents of the Bill want to make it very, very clear that this is about people carrying out a final act, and no doctor is allowed to do something that involves going beyond that. At the same time we have a situation where doctors—I am using the word “doctor” slightly loosely, but for present purposes that is what we are talking about—have to be present and have to remain with the person. We know that there will be some people for whom there are complications.

My concern is to make sure that there has been sufficient consideration given to what exactly a doctor is meant to do at that point, because it seems to me that it ends up putting the person who is undergoing those complications in a horrible position. It is also—I am perfectly happy to use this phrase—putting the doctor in a position of extraordinary moral distress. Are they at that point supposed to try and rely on the doctrine of double effect and say, “All I am trying to do is treat the complication, not bring about your death,” but the Bill is saying, “No, you are not allowed to do that”? I understand entirely why the intention is to say that the doctor must always be hands off, as it were, but you need to super clear that you are going to put some people in some very, very difficult positions, and Parliament needs to be clear-eyed about that.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Q I want to stick with clause 18, because as it stands there can be some assistance by the clinician but there cannot be total delivery or administration by the clinician. You could end up with a scenario where, for instance, you have somebody who is tetraplegic and then gets a terminal diagnosis, has capacity to make the decision and wants to end their life, but they do not have the physical means of doing so. Do you think that is open for challenge on grounds of discrimination?

Sir Max Hill: I would not look at it on grounds of discrimination. What I would do is put that clause alongside what are generally referred to as the slippery slope arguments in other jurisdictions. In other jurisdictions—Canada might be one and some of the US states might be another—the provision of life-ending medication is expressed in a form of treatment by a doctor. This is not that. We are clear when reading clause 18 that it is not a permission to administer; in fact, it is a prohibition on administration. It is making available in certain tightly defined circumstances and then standing by—not necessarily in the same room, as stated in subsection (10)—while the self-administered medication takes effect.

Having said that, I am absolutely clear that there is only so far a Bill or Act of Parliament can go as primary legislation. There is then further distance that must be covered by the provision of practical and professional rules, under the auspices of the national health service here, to indicate precisely the circumstances in which this will physically happen. I do not see that as discriminatory; we are dealing with a tight category of defined individuals to whom this applies and it does not apply to anybody outside that, as we have just discussed. But it is not prone to the slippery slope arguments of something that is generally to be made available in the course of treatment. In fact, the Bill has been couched in a very different way.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Q Sir Nicholas, can I bring you in on that? You referred to it directly in your proposed amendment.

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: I did. What particular aspect do you want me to address? The range is quite wide. In relation to the administration of the substance, it is interesting that in Spain, which is now in its second full year of doing this, take-up has been extremely low. There have been only 700 requests, with a quarter denied, and a quarter of the people died prematurely. Three hundred were granted, but of those 300, in 95% of cases the substance was administered by the doctor and auto-administered in only 5%. I am trying to work out why that is, culturally, in Spain. Maybe people go when they are extremely infirm, and that is the reason for it. I am not able to see the moral distinction between having the substance administered and auto-administration. On your question, there are devices that enable somebody who is locked in to end their lives by a blink of the eyelash, aren’t there?

Sir Max Hill: Yes.

[Lewis Atkinson]

Q We have heard from two witnesses—you, Sir Nicholas, and Dr Ahmedzai from the earlier panel—on the question of judicial oversight. While we have you here, Sir Max and Mr Ruck Keene, what are your observations on the proposals from those two witnesses that an alternative to a High Court judge overseeing the process would be some form of panel or tribunal, potentially multidisciplinary? What is your view on that and the legal implications for that?

Sir Max Hill: I would say two things. First, it bears weight that, looking at all the provisions in the Bill, the additional level of scrutiny currently being called judicial scrutiny or approval is absent in all the comparative examples around the world. That already makes this a tighter pre-legislative model than we see in other countries that have gone down this route. That is worth remembering.

Secondly, while I am not a family lawyer—I was, but a very long time ago—I think that the family division of the High Court would be very well-placed to perform the sort of exercise enshrined in current drafting, which is not a rubber-stamping exercise, but a substantive consideration of heavily objective medical opinion arrived at by not one, but two doctors, one of whom is not the treating doctor.

I listen to and accept the question of pressure on the justice system generally. That is something the Committee will be concerned about because, if the Bill passes, we want something workable. I heed what Sir James Munby said. The sitting judiciary, for good constitutional reasons, is highly unlikely to say anything. But there is therefore merit in looking at clause 12, under the heading, “Court approval”, and performing quite a simple exercise, which for me would be going through subsections (1) to (6) inclusive and, where it says “High Court”, replace that with something else. Personally, I have an aversion to the word “tribunal”, which indicates a right and wrong or some kind of fault-based system—that is not what we are talking about here. But a panel, as Nick said, is the way to go—

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: A panel appointed by the Official Solicitor.

Sir Max Hill: Whether appointed by the Official Solicitor or not. Dare I say it—because I am sitting next to a very distinguished one—I do wonder about the recently retired members of the judiciary and the role that they could play under a replacement panel system.

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: That is what I had in mind—the Official Solicitor looking at the retired judges.

Sir Max Hill: Yes, so there is legal professional capacity among the retired judges—not that they would sit alone on a panel. It would bring with it the extra benefit of having suitably qualified medical professionals, like the Spanish model. So yes, I think that could be done. That is not the same thing as saying that the High Court approval model is fatally flawed and could not be introduced, but I do think there is a viable alternative, which is worth looking at.

Alex Ruck Keene: I have only one observation, and I said this in my written evidence but I also want to say it out loud. You have to think very carefully about what purpose any form of this oversight is actually serving societally, if the oversight panel, whether that be a judge or a panel, cannot decline to approve an application if it considers that the reason the individual is seeking assistance in dying is because of service provision failures by the statutory bodies responsible for meeting their health and social care needs. That is a question of principle, and I want to make sure that that is squarely before you.

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

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q Was it a multidisciplinary board that Dr McLaren set up to look at the safety and quality of voluntary assisted dying?

Dr McLaren: This was born out of when we started as a Victorian group. We were very individual and we interpreted the law in our own ways. We complied with it as best we could, but we did not have a centralised discussion board or peer group set up at the time. We have propagated advice through the other states to ensure that there are what we call community practices, where clinicians can discuss their cases and learn from each other.

Several months after, from I think June to November, we had no interconnection with other VAD-practising doctors. In November, we had a forum set up where we are able to connect and talk about difficult cases and how we would each interpret them. As the subsequent states came online, we were approached by some of the practitioners from other states saying, “We don’t really want to reinvent that wheel, so can we join your community of practice?” Because it was set up by our state government, they were unable to join, so I saw a gap in terms of creating an organisation where we could propagate that knowledge and not all start from scratch.

It initially started as a group of voluntary assisted dying medical practitioners, and we would discuss cases across the board and ask things like, “What would you do under your legislation?” and we all learned from that. Then we were approached by pharmacists, nurses and others involved in voluntary assisted dying provision, including legislators who wanted to contribute to the custodians of the voluntary assisted dying law, who are the people who actually run the projects. That then led to the creation of Voluntary Assisted Dying Australia and New Zealand, which is a multidisciplinary group of predominantly doctors, but we do have nurses, pharmacists and legislators involved. We have had two annual conferences where we discuss issues faced by many of our practitioners. That has been a great resource for people.

We are developing standards. We feel that in our legislation there was perhaps too much about instilling what the standards are. We feel as though the appropriate-ness of such things as telehealth should be regulated via standards rather than via legislation, which it currently is in Australia. These are the types of topics we have weighed in on and created position statements for in order to protect the laws that we believe in, uphold and like to think of ourselves as responsible practitioners of.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Q Dr Fellingham, to circle back to the issue of training, could you go into more detail about what the initial training consists of—the nature of it and the number of hours—and how that compares with the refresher training? What is the system for mentorship, supervision, appraisal and continuing professional development requirements?

Dr Fellingham: It is important to reflect that only people who are at quite a significant point through their own specialty careers are eligible to become assisted dying practitioners in this country. For instance, I was a consultant anaesthetist and I had already been practising for more than a year. I had lived experience of caring for patients both living and dying, both anticipated and unexpectedly, over a career spanning more than 10 years, before I came to the point of assisted dying.

To become eligible to offer assisted dying, I then had to undertake training developed in a special package by the Queensland University of Technology. That training package takes about two days to complete and there is an exam at the end before someone can become eligible. The exam has a 95% pass rate.

Once someone has qualified with that training, they are offered the opportunity to give their details to the state-wide care navigator service. The vast majority of people opt to do that. Once they do that, they basically become engaged in this incredibly supportive, collaborative and nurturing multidisciplinary team within a professional organisation that, in our state, covers all the assisted dying practitioners—the doctors—but also the care navigators, the pharmacy service, the individual voluntary assisted dying programme managers and the end of life choices co-ordinators, who exist in all our hospital systems.

Because we are all consultants in our own specialties, there is not the same level of supervisory oversight as we would give to junior doctors—there are not forms that we fill in; we do not accredit one another—but we do acknowledge that we are all learning and growing in this space. These are new laws: even the oldest in Australia has only been going for five years. Every single one of us is motivated from a place of wanting to support, collaborate, grow and learn from one another, and ensure that the care we are offering to people in this challenging space is of the absolute highest quality.

We have a really robust community of practice. We meet monthly. Half those meetings are online to allow our regional practitioners to join, and half of them are face to face. They are extremely well-attended closed sessions where, especially over the time that we have developed relationships with one another, we find an incredibly supportive space to share our experiences and to learn, grow and develop from one another.

In terms of CPD, we all have to maintain our professional registration. I have both general and specialist registration with our supervisory body, which is like the General Medical Council. I complete my mandatory CPD requirements each year, as per my specialist college. On top of that, I have just redone the refresher training, which is once every three years. That is just what was mandated in our state. If someone has not done VAD practice, they have to do the whole thing again. That is only for people who have been active in this space. That training is shorter—it is about half a day—but it is really a reflection of what we are doing on a weekly basis. We are living and breathing this work, and really strongly collaborating with everybody else who does it.

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

Q Could you talk us through eligibility with regard to neurodegenerative diseases, and whether you have in place any variations and considerations for things such as Parkinson’s or motor neurone disease? Is the main delivery mechanism for VAD in Australia the mainstream health service, or is it delivered through a separate wing, arm or organisation?

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

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

Q I want to ask about capacity. Chloe, I think you said patients are sometimes given the drug some time before they die, so I want to understand where capacity assessments are taken and at what stage during the process.

Dr Furst: Capacity assessments are taken every time a doctor sees the patient. In my state, that would be at first assessment—first request—then a consulting doctor would come and do another hour-long assessment of the patient and assesses capacity at that stage, and then I would come back as the co-ordinating doctor for a second or third assessment of the patient, and assess capacity. They would then be given their drug, if it is self-administered. We assume and hope that they retain capacity, and we strongly advise patients and families that, should they lose capacity, they will have voided their permit and they cannot take the drug, but there is less oversight of that. However, we know that the majority—over 80%—of these patients are connected with palliative care, so we often have community teams going in and seeing them, and we are still touching base with them, maybe more peripherally, and checking capacity as we are having conversations or as we are coming and doing home visits from a palliative care perspective. If it were deemed that the patient is quite delirious, the permit would be voided and we would remove the substance from the house. If it is practitioner administration, we are also, obviously, testing capacity right at the moment that we are administering the substance.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Q I will direct this question initially to Mr Greenwich. The issue of coercion has been a significant concern to many in the debate. In line with the New South Wales legislation, the Bill as proposed does not provide a definition of coercion, either explicitly or by reference to other legislation. Have you found that to pose a difficulty in your jurisdiction?

Alex Greenwich: In New South Wales, our legislation deals with and goes through coercion in quite some detail, with pathways to assess it. It deals specifically, for example, with a situation in which someone is under coercion from a person who is a beneficiary of their will; obviously, the person seeking voluntary assisted dying then becomes ineligible. In the space of coercion, that is a key part of the training for a doctor who will be a consulting or co-ordinating practitioner. We have made it a criminal offence in New South Wales, and indeed our board will report on it and on whether eligibility for access to voluntary assisted dying has been denied to someone. Our most recent report indicates that it has.

The overwhelming experience is that having voluntary assisted dying in place is itself a safeguard from coercion for people with a terminal illness. If someone wants to end their life quickly, voluntary assisted dying through a regulated process is not the option that they are going to take. Someone engaging in voluntary assisted dying will be assessed against coercion and against decision-making capacity, and will have to make sure it is an enduring decision.

When we talk about coercion, and the concern that people may currently have in the UK about people with a terminal illness feeling in any way coerced, the experience in New South Wales and elsewhere in Australia is that voluntary assisted dying has provided a safeguard in that regard. Our legislation, the training and the reporting is very clear on that.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

Q Can I have one minute with Dr Furst and one minute with Mr Greenwich? Dr Furst, I have had a look at the reports of the South Australia Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board, and I can find no data on referrals for additional assessments of eligibility or decision-making capacity, or reasons why people were considered ineligible. There is no provision for reporting on complications, the time between the administration of the drugs and loss of consciousness, or the time between the administration of the drugs and death, and as we have heard there is no requirement for a doctor to be present. I do not understand how you can say that there is no evidence of coercion, issues around capacity or complications at the death, because you clearly do not collect the evidence on those things.

Dr Furst: I do not think that is the case. We are seeking out from relatives—within a month, normally—around any complications. As I said, we are also informally speaking to the nurse practitioners who are on site, but I do not think that that has been published as part of our state report. In terms of coercion, I would say that it is much more likely that patients are being coerced into invasive and intensive treatments, like cancer treatments such as chemotherapy, than being coerced into voluntary assisted dying.

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

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

Q Dr Ward, I am keen to hear about your work on the Bill in the Scottish Parliament and about how best practice in other jurisdictions has informed the legislation that is currently going through Holyrood. How has it influenced and informed that draft?

Dr Ward: I was the adviser on the previous Bill in Scotland as well, under Margo MacDonald MSP and Patrick Harvie MSP. That was in session 4 of our Parliament; we then did not have a Bill in session 5, which is when we set up things like the cross-party working group on end-of-life choices and I did the PhD. Luckily, we saw a domino effect internationally in session 5; there were various jurisdictions legislating for it. When we came to draft this legislation in 2021, in session 6 of the Parliament, we had decades of data that we had not had when Margo made her first attempt back in 2010.

With the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, we have been working with international experts since 2021, and we have had various consultation processes. It is currently with the Health Committee of the Scottish Parliament. We set up a medical advisory group, chaired by Dr Sandesh Gulhane MSP: a group of almost a dozen practitioners in palliative care, mental health experts, geriatricians and other interested stakeholders. It produced a report for us on the medicinal aspects of the Bill.

That has been a four-year process. I understand that concerns have been voiced in this Committee that things have proceeded at pace, but I would argue that you are not pioneers. There is 20 or 30 years’ worth of data, which we have drawn on in Scotland, and there is four years’ worth of work in Scotland that this Committee and this Parliament could look to.

I would also make the point that the data is peer-reviewed and evidence-based. You really have to trust your international colleagues. The data is from Government bodies, from Health Departments, from independent academic peer-reviewed work and from independent review boards. We are now looking at fact rather than at falsehoods or concerns, as we were back in 2010.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Q Clause 9(3)(b) would permit an assessing clinician to refer to a psychiatrist if they have concerns about the assessment of capacity. Some have suggested that in fact all patients who are seeking a voluntary assisted death should be assessed by a psychiatrist. Professor Owen, in terms of workforce capability and capacity, is it reasonably practicable to have a consultant psychiatrist assessing each and every one of these patients?

Professor Owen: I think the answer to that is “Probably not,” given the current workforce. Another relevant point is that even if you were to insert into the Bill a very clear requirement for a consultant psychiatrist to be involved if there were concerns about mental health, what would happen in practice would be very different. You can see this in Oregon, whose law has a requirement for, essentially, a psychiatric referral in the case of mental health concern. Those referrals basically occur in less than 5% of cases; I think it is similar in California. Even if you put it in law, there is the question whether it will happen in practice. On the data, it does not. I think that that is a relevant consideration.

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

Q Professor Hoyano, I am interested to explore your views on the third layer. I understand your view about the Court of Protection, but we have heard in previous evidence, not least from eminent members of your profession, that the Spanish model of a panel of experts might be an option worth examining. In those circumstances, what is your view of the investigatory processes, either for that or for the Court of Protection, or the type of evidence that might need to be adduced? What could be specified in the legislation as a requirement on those people involved in the process?

Professor Hoyano: I have to say that I have real concerns, as a practising barrister, about how the provisions as currently drafted could work in terms of judicial oversight. There are a number of unusual functions, if I can express it that way, being attributed to the court. I need first of all to stress that the High Court’s family division, and the Court of Protection, regularly engage with life and death matters, but they are doing so in the context of an adversarial and not an inquisitorial system. However, since the 19th century we have had the invaluable institution of the Official Solicitor, who has investigatory powers or functions and who serves in court as an amicus curiae—a friend of the court—to assist the court in understanding where the issues lie and in calling witnesses. I do not think that it is feasible at all, in our current system, to have the court call witnesses or question them directly until they have been examined and cross-examined, if appropriate; the court can then put in questions and ask for clarification, as would happen normally now.

If we are to have a judicial oversight function as opposed to a panel of experts—to be honest, I think we already have the panel of experts: the doctors who are already involved in the different stages leading up to the final stage—the easiest approach would be for the investigatory function to be assigned to the office of the Official Solicitor, preferably with an individual who has expertise in this field and will be able to get experience by dealing with these cases. I point out that Lord Justice Munby himself—Sir James Munby, as he now is—represented the Official Solicitor in the seminal case on termination of life support, the Tony Bland case. We have a lot of experience in that area, in dealing with end-of-life decision making with the Official Solicitor, but I think that that role needs to be built into the legislation with very specific tasks set out, including an investigatory function.

The other current difficulty is that it is not clear at all what the procedure would be. With great respect to the drafters of the Bill, I have never before seen such a delegation of the most essential procedural structures entirely to rules of court in terms of practice directions or rules of practice; we do not do it in the family division and we do not do it in the Court of Protection. Exactly what has to happen needs to be set out.

It strikes me that the intention may be for the court to, in effect, certify that all the procedures have been correctly followed at the preliminary stages. What is not entirely clear is whether the court itself is required to investigate whether the criteria are satisfied. It reads like that, but I am not sure whether it is supposed to be a review function or a primary decision-making function.

This becomes even more difficult because of the way in which the Court of Appeal’s functions are ascribed. The Court of Appeal does not have power to summon witnesses; the Court of Appeal does not have power to question witnesses. In the criminal division, which is where I am primarily practising now, the court can hear expert evidence de bene esse in order to determine whether it should send a case back for a retrial on the basis of newly discovered evidence that was not originally available, but that evidence will be called by the defence. The defence will be putting the evidence in, the Crown will cross-examine and the court will ask any additional questions it wants to, but to have an original jurisdiction —in effect, what we call a trial de novo: a trial all over again—in the Court of Appeal is wholly inappropriate to an appellate jurisdiction. That needs to be completely rethought.

There is also a difficulty in that the right to appeal is very lopsided: only a patient can appeal a denial, not anyone else. If anyone has concerns about the probity and thoroughness of the preliminary stages, or thinks that the High Court judge sitting in the Court of Protection has made an error of law or has failed to follow the procedures, that needs to be reviewed by the Court of Appeal. We need an even-handed approach.

I can understand the motivation of not wanting busybody people, as happened in one case in Canada in which a wife had a religious objection to assisted dying, and yet there was no doubt that the husband had satisfied all the criteria. She went all the way to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal because of her religious objections; it turned out that religion was a source of great dissension in the marriage anyway, but her church was egging her on. I know that you do not want that kind of situation, but I believe that this legislation has to be completely even-handed for it to work and for the system to acquire public respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott]

Q Professor Preston, you have extensive research into palliative and end-of-life care. It would be really helpful for the Committee if you could describe some of the underlying motivations about why people come to the decisions they do when choosing end-of-life care, and how you feel assisted dying would sit as an available option for those making those decisions, if it was available.

Professor Preston: The decision to go into palliative care is often made more by a clinical team, recommending that there be changes in the goals of care and what we are to aiming do. There are two big European studies looking at that at the moment, in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cancer. It is about trying to get triggers so that those changes in care can happen, because people cannot make decisions unless they are informed and they are aware.

Equally, when it comes to assisted dying, we have done interviews with bereaved families and healthcare workers in the United States, the Netherlands and Switzerland, and also with British families who access assisted dying through Dignitas. We hear from the family members that it is something they have really thought about for a long time. It might come to a crunch point where they know they are potentially going to lose capacity, they are potentially going to lose the abilities that are important to them—although for someone else, losing them may not be an issue.

That is when people start to seek help. They usually first seek help from one or two family members. There is often secrecy around that, because you do not want everyone talking about it. It is quite exhausting to talk about. It is a decision you have made. Then they seek help from healthcare professionals, and that is where they get a varied response depending on who they access. It is a bit of a lottery, because it only a minority of doctors will be willing to do this. That is where the challenge comes in.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Q Professor Preston, in your written submission, you effectively propose reversing the presumption of capacity that is set out in the Mental Capacity Act. Could you go into a little more detail about that and the reasons behind that proposal?

Professor Preston: The submission was with my colleague, Professor Suzanne Ost, who is a professor of law, and that very much came from Suzanne.

I think the aim is to have that bit of extra concern, so that we do not presume capacity, but instead almost presume that there is not capacity. It would be a bit like if you go to A&E with a child and they have a fracture. The presumption there is to ask, “How did this happen?” and “Do we need to rule anything out?”, rather than just assuming “Well, they have just fallen over” and that things are exactly as said. There is an element of that, where we are not presuming capacity, but are actually going into it and switching it around within the training to ask, “Do they have capacity?”. I think that would be a change within the Mental Capacity Act.

[Lewis Atkinson]

Q Dr Richards, in the light of your research, could you say a little bit more about the weight that individuals dying place on the importance of autonomy and how that is weighed up against other considerations around safeguarding and so on?

Dr Richards: There are two things that I would like to say about this. The first is that it is individually specific, which probably will not come as a shock to you. The evidence shows that the people who request assisted dying are people who have a particular preference for control in their life, and they have had this preference across their life, so it is part of their identity. In that sense, it is a personal preference as opposed to a deficit in palliative care, which is what we hear a lot about.

The second thing is that, with regards to autonomy, proponents of assisted dying are very keen to emphasise that this is an autonomous decision, which it is, and would have to be by virtue of the law. However, that does not mean that families, loved ones and close social relations are not really embedded in that decision making. It is important to think of autonomy as relational rather than as an isolated making a decision not in relation to others. It is also important to think about the impacts on the family when you are thinking about the guidelines that would go along with any legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q I think you have answered it, but it was whether there was any specific detail about the Human Tissue Authority, how it operates and what that looks like.

Dr Price: I do not have lots of individual experience with that group, because I do not work within a specific service. But it is an example of a model that is in operation, and hopefully I have described the sorts of characteristics and why they are there.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Q My question is directed to Dr Mulholland. Thank you to the Royal College of General Practitioners for the helpful written evidence. I want to pick up on something in it, which is summarised in paragraph 6 but gone into in more detail in paragraph 7, and that is around the refusal of practitioners to engage in the assisted dying process. I note the wording that has been used by the Royal College, which is that GPs and any other healthcare professionals can refuse “on any ground”. That is distinct from the Abortion Act 1967, which in section 4(1) sets out that it can be a conscientious objection. Can you explain why you have decided to take what appears to be a broader expansion of that definition, and why you have chosen that particular wording?

Dr Mulholland: We are aware that we have a range of views in RCGP across general practitioners. Some of them have very strong views for or against based on moral grounds, and some of those are based on religious grounds—traditional conscientious objection grounds. But others do not want to take part in assisted dying just because they do not want to; they do not feel it is part of what being a GP is, or part of what they trained for.

In discussion with colleagues today, someone shared with me that for 35 years they have spent their time trying to extend the life of patients—that has been our role—and to help them towards the end of life. It is a philosophical change if they start to think about whether the patient’s life should end earlier. There are some colleagues who may decide that for those reasons, they do not want to take part in this. There will be others who very definitely do. We have that range, so we feel that a doctor or a health professional should have the right not to take part on any ground, and that should be protected—they should not feel the obligation to do something that they do not feel is within their wishes.

[Naz Shah]

Q My question is to Dr Price. We heard yesterday from Professor House and this afternoon from Professor Owen, who were talking about capacity and coercion. They also talked about how different people’s life experiences impact their ability and their state of mind, and the lack of research or evidence in that area—the courts are grappling with those issues at the moment. Is there any evidence about the effect on patients’ mental health when they have a diagnosis of a terminal or serious physical illness?

Dr Price: There is a lot of research evidence around depression in people with palliative care needs and people nearing the end of life. We know that depression is common, and across a number of studies it is at around 20%—much more common than in the general population. We know that depression is strongly associated with a wish to hasten death, and that if depression is found and treated in that group of patients, there will be significant change in the wish to hasten death.

There are a number of associations other than depression with a wish to hasten death, and they include difficult symptom experience, poor functional status—needing a lot of help with things—and being socially isolated. Those are really key ones. They also include a sense of loss of dignity and feeling like a burden on others. These things can all come together to make life feel very unbearable. We know that there is also an overlap between a wish to hasten death, which is a response to suffering, and feeling that one is better off dead, ending one’s own life or harming oneself. I was involved in a study where we asked people both the wording of “a wish to hasten death” and the suicide question from the PHQ9, which is a depression screening tool. Those who had a wish to hasten death were 18 times more likely to also feel suicidal, according to the psychiatric definition, than people who did not have a wish to hasten death. There is a strong association.

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

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Tidball]

I will make some progress.

The concept set out by the hon. Member for Richmond Park is the bare bones of what is needed in the complex decision making required across various stages of the Bill. In such decision making, the MCA has a wide and well-used toolkit to determine capacity. That leads to my third point. The Mental Capacity Act has been applied and litigated in our court system over the past 20 years. The chief medical officer, Professor Sir Chris Whitty, said in his evidence that the Act

“has the advantage of being tested in the courts. That has gone as far as the Supreme Court, and the various ambiguities that were inevitably in the legislation have been clarified by senior judges. Therefore, to practitioners like me, it feels like a piece of robust and predictable legislation.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 33, Q7.]

He continued later:

“If there were no Mental Capacity Act, there would be an argument, which has been used for a long time, that the Bill would have to define what was meant with a fair degree of clarity.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 36, Q14.]

I do not see sufficient clarity in the hon. Lady’s concept as set out in the amendment.

At a later evidence session, Yogi Amin, a solicitor and partner at Irwin Mitchell, augmented Sir Chris Whitty’s argument by saying:

“I wholly recommend and support the idea…to defer to the Mental Capacity Act for capacity assessments. I have been working in this area for over 20 years, before and after the Mental Capacity Act came in, and I have done cases all the way up to the Supreme Court, as well as day-to-day different cases around the country. It is well understood how capacity assessments are done, and it is ingrained into the practice of practitioners generally and of legal practitioners in the courts.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 140, Q176.]

He continued:

“It is a well settled and understood approach to the law, and producing a new one would throw up a whole new conundrum, where people would be questioning how to approach it, etc. It is not broken—it works well.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 141, Q177.]

Finally, for further clarity, I will vote against the amendment because of the ableist assumption in both language and concept. Ableist language assumes that disabled people are inferior to non-disabled people and perpetuates deficit discourses about such groups. I believe that this does not take the approach that we see in the paradigm of the Mental Capacity Act, which puts disabled people’s choices, autonomy and control over their choices at the heart of this legislation.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park for tabling the amendments. Fundamentally, I do not agree with them, but I am grateful for her good intentions. I understand the concerns that she has raised, and she makes an eloquent argument, but I fundamentally disagree.

In my view, the amendments would only lead to abandoning the well-established principles codified within the Mental Capacity Act. They would introduce a degree of woolliness and legal uncertainty by introducing of a new term that is, as yet, undefined. That would make the operability of the Bill so much harder and would move us away from the Mental Capacity Act, which has a heritage of some 20 years and is already well established in the use of advance directives around organ transplantation, the withdrawal of treatment and the decision to undergo major operations that can have life-changing or life-limiting consequences.

[Danny Kruger]

My hon. Friend says that the term “ability” is not yet defined, but it is set out quite clearly in new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. It simply says:

“The person is to be considered as having the ability to make a decision to request assistance to end their life if they can fully understand, use and weigh the relevant information”.

It uses the language of the Mental Capacity Act on understanding and weighing information. The key distinction is that it does not allow for impaired judgment; it requires somebody fully to understand the information in front of them. It is very straightforward, and I do not think that it would be difficult to apply. Does my hon. Friend recognise that the terms are pretty clearly laid out?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend makes incisive points clearly and concisely, as always, but I cannot agree. This is a short clause that is dealing with a hugely complicated issue that is presently codified within the Mental Capacity Act, which runs to some 183 pages. I do not think that it is as simple as saying that the new clause deals with the issue.

There is also the two-stage test, which determines both the functional ability to make the decision and whether that decision is impaired in any way. It would be an oversimplification to suggest that the provision as drafted would deal with those issues in a satisfactory way that would provide confidence not only—although most importantly—to those who are making a decision around an assisted death, but to the medical practitioners who are part of the process and the courts, which will have to grapple with the issues that will inevitably arise from a new definition.

[Sean Woodcock]

The Royal College of Psychiatrists highlights that a person’s capacity can change and is decision-specific. It therefore says that the Mental Capacity Act is not suitable for the Bill. What is the hon. Member’s response?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Member is absolutely right that capacity can change. It is an evolving piece: someone’s capacity at one point in time will not necessarily be the same as their capacity on a future or a previous date. However, the whole purpose of the Bill is to put a series of mechanisms in place that assess capacity to ensure a robust decision-making process.

I should also mention that the Mental Capacity Act allows the capability of individuals to make an advance directive. Where they have capacity at a point in time to make a decision for a future date, capacity can be inferred at that future date for that decision. That is acknowledged within the 2005 Act.

[Kit Malthouse]

I have to confess that I am a little confused by the evidence to which my hon. Friend refers. Can he confirm that it is perfectly possible for me to be diagnosed with a terminal disease and make an advance directive, which may apply in three months’ time, that in those circumstances I would decline treatment and would wish to die at that point? The Mental Capacity Act is used to assess me in making that advance directive, having had my terminal diagnosis. If it is good for that decision, I struggle to understand why it would not be good for a similar decision to end my life in similar circumstances.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

As always, my right hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Mental Capacity Act allows for advance directives on a whole variety of choices, including withdrawal of treatment, decisions on care or financial elements, and decisions on having treatment as opposed to not having treatment. It creates that ability and it is deemed robust enough for those purposes. It must therefore follow that it is robust enough for the purposes of the Bill.

[Sarah Olney]

I just want to probe the hon. Member on the capacity to make a future directive. Is he saying that, under the terms of the Bill as drafted and its reference to the Mental Capacity Act, it would be possible to say, “I may not be eligible now—I may not even be suffering from a terminal illness—but at some future point, because I have capacity today to make this decision, I should like to choose assisted dying”? Would that decision then be honoured at that future date, without any further intervention or assessment?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Member makes an interesting point, which I had already considered; in fact, I have tabled a new clause that would address it. It is not grouped with the amendments now before the Committee, but I will touch on it, if I may.

There is an argument that, if an individual with an advance directive has gone through the two-stage test in the Bill and then loses capacity, the advance directive should hold weight. My new clause 6 would deal with that point. Sections 27 to 29 of the Mental Capacity Act deal with exclusions from advance directives, including issues around voting rights, marriage rights and Mental Health Act implications. There may be a mechanism, for example, to exclude an advance directive that deals with assisted death, either through the Bill or through an amendment to the Mental Capacity Act. But I do not disagree with the hon. Lady; she raises an interesting point.

[Danny Kruger]

Is my hon. Friend suggesting—I think his new clause makes it clear, and I think my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire is making the same point—that it is inappropriate for an advance directive to authorise an assisted death? The Mental Capacity Act authorises somebody to decline treatment at a future point, so my hon. Friend is acknowledging that there is a difference between the principle of declining treatment and the principle of requesting an assisted death. Given his new clause, I do not imagine that my hon. Friend thinks that we should have advance directives that authorise an assisted death. If he acknowledges that, he must recognise that there is a distinction between declining treatment and requesting an assisted death.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I have concerns about public confidence in the Bill without that additional safeguard, as this is such a consequential decision, but of course any advance directive would be predicated on having gone through those two stages first before capacity is lost. I feel that on this occasion additional tightening is necessary so that the public can be confident that a robust process has been gone through.

The MCA is a tried and tested piece of legislation used by practitioners up and down the country. The hon. Member for Stroud uses it every day in his practice; I have to say that I did not, but I was not consenting patients for surgery every day. Every time I did so, however, I had those conversations. Capacity lies on a spectrum: if I am doing major abdominal surgery, the level of capacity required to make a decision will be much greater than if I am removing a small bump or lump on an arm.

As well as having been tried and tested by medical practitioners, the MCA has been tested in the courts, as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said. It has been right up to the highest court in this land, it has been robustly tested and it has been found to be good legislation. The risk we now face is that it will be replaced not only with a new legal concept, but with an entirely different process for assessing capacity in this setting. Although there may be good intentions to improve the system, that will only add to the folly of it and overcomplicate the issue.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am sorry that it has taken me a while to find the relevant provision of the Bill. The discussion on the advance directive is a really interesting one, and I am glad that we are having it. Is the hon. Member reassured that clause 18(4) is very clear that on the day that assistance is provided to a patient, a doctor has to assess once again their capacity to make the decision to end their own life, check again that there is a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life, and indeed check everything again on the day, including capacity? I believe that that will negate the issue around the advance directive.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Member makes a reasonable point. I agree with her on many issues, but on this issue I have some reservations. Clause 18(4) says:

“The coordinating doctor must be satisfied, at the time the approved substance is provided, that the person to whom it is provided…has capacity…has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”.

Of course, under the wording of section 26(1) of the Mental Capacity Act, that decision can be made at an earlier time and deemed to have currency, once capacity has been lost, for its enactment at a later date. I think that there could be a minor tightening of the wording or reassurances from Government to address that, but it is an important point to raise and air.

[Naz Shah]

rose—

[Naz Shah]

I am just trying to understand what the hon. Member is communicating. Under the Bill, if somebody has anorexia, diabetes or kidney failure and has the capacity to make that decision because they meet the criteria for the capacity to refuse treatment, will that mean that they can decide to sign up to this option?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The Bill is very clear in determining that it is for those who have a progressive illness, disease or medical condition that cannot be reversed by treatment. On my reading of the Bill, it excludes that category of individuals who choose not to engage with treatment that in ordinary circumstances would prevent the progression or deterioration of their condition. I therefore do not see it as analogous with the hon. Member’s scenario of someone who could have a long life expectancy if they had taken their treatment, but who chooses not to. That is not captured within the Bill, in my interpretation.

[Naz Shah]

I am struggling with this, because it is clear from the evidence from our witnesses that that is the case where somebody has anorexia, for example, and they make that choice. As has been referred to plenty of times in the context of the Bill, the Mental Capacity Act has been used, and is sufficiently used, for people to withdraw treatment. Personally, I think that that is a pretty false equivalence, because when a person’s life support machine is turned off, the decision is made not by the person receiving lifesaving treatment, but by their loved ones.

According to what we have heard this morning, if someone has the mental capacity to use the MCA to withdraw treatment for a condition, that will lead to a diagnosis of terminal illness. It could kill someone. If I refused to take insulin, and I was diabetic, I would have the mental capacity to say, “Actually, I’m not going to take this treatment, so can I make a decision?” I am just trying to check the hon. Gentleman’s understanding.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Member, I think that she is conflating two issues. Someone can stop treatment under the MCA; over time, that will lead progressively to death, with some conditions—she gave the example of being a diabetic without insulin—but that would not be a terminal illness in reference to this Bill. The Bill is very clear that it is about an inevitable and progressive illness, disease, or medical condition that cannot be reversed by treatment. Diabetes, treated with insulin, is not a progressive condition that becomes a terminal diagnosis; it is terminal only by virtue of somebody refusing treatment, which therefore would not be captured within the Bill.

[Rebecca Paul]

I would like to understand why my hon. Friend thinks that diabetes could ever be considered reversible. It can be treated and managed, but surely we cannot turn back time.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point—the Committee can see that I was an orthopaedic surgeon, not an endocrinologist. It is not necessarily a progressive condition; it is a condition that can be managed and maintained. It does not fall within the wording of the Bill. We are not talking about a condition that is inevitably progressive, and for which there is no treatment option available to pause, reverse or prevent its progression. We are talking about a relatively limited group of conditions that will inevitably lead to death when someone, for want of a less blunt phrase, has reached the end of the road in terms of their therapeutic treatment options.

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Sarah Olney]

rose—

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I give way to the hon. Member for Richmond Park.

[Sarah Olney]

I am conscious that the hon. Member for Ipswich sought to intervene before me, but may I press the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley slightly on his point? When I asked Professor Sir Chris Whitty during oral evidence whether there could ever be a defined list of conditions that he would define as terminal, he was very clear that there could not be. Someone may suffer from a range of conditions. Most people who develop cancer survive, so cancer is a terminal illness, but not for everybody.

The question of what is and is not a terminal illness is quite contested; it is not clearcut. As the hon. Member for Bradford West says, it is quite possible that diabetes could be a terminal illness if someone refuses treatment for it. I am not entirely clear why the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley is saying that it is clear from the legislation what is and is not a terminal illness. As we heard in oral evidence, it is not clear.

[The Chair]

Order. I remind Members that the Committee will discuss terminal illnesses, and extending the list relating to terminal illnesses, under a later clause. Let us remain in scope this morning and continue the debate on the amendments before the Committee.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I will keep my answer very brief by saying that I will return to hon. Lady’s point when we come to the clause on terminal illness, when perhaps I can elucidate, improve and work on my responses in a way that is conducive to understanding.

[Sarah Olney]

I look forward to it.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am aware that the hon. Member for Ipswich is waiting to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Member is right: there is a huge spectrum of patients when dealing with these complex issues, and it would be absolute nonsense to arbitrarily say that anybody with depression is unable to make an informed decision on any issue. There are individuals who have mild depression—indeed, I suspect that most people with a terminal diagnosis would have some form of depression or reactive disorder, whether formally diagnosed or not, because of their circumstances. That does not mean that they are unable to make a rational, informed decision; we have to look at each patient individually. The Act is a tried and tested piece of legislation that doctors up and down the country use every day. Doctors over the road in St Tommy’s will be using it at this very moment, and they are adept at knowing and sensing when they need to escalate, whether by getting the opinion of a psychologist or a psychiatrist, because they have concerns about underlying issues. The Act is a robust piece of legislation, and we should be using it to enhance this Bill, not introducing further complexity, which will only put us into a quagmire of uncertainty.

[Danny Kruger]

My hon. Friend does not want uncertainty, so perhaps he could answer this question very directly: would he be content to see somebody who is depressed, and indeed suicidal, successfully apply for an assisted death?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend puts it with his usual candour. He asked a straight question, so I will give him a straight answer: I think there is a difference between somebody who is depressed and somebody who is depressed and suicidal. I have no personal moral objections if someone who has a terminal illness, who suffers from depression and who has capacity as set out through the two-stage test in the Mental Capacity Act, ultimately wishes to end their life because of their terminal diagnosis. If they are doing it because they are suicidal as a consequence of their depression, that is a different and distinct issue. We are talking about individuals who want to end their life because of their terminal diagnosis, not because of their mental disorder.

[Jake Richards]

I keep making the point that clause 9 adds a different element to this process. It says that, when undertaking the assessment, one of the two doctors

“may, if they have doubt as to…capacity…refer the person for assessment”

of their capacity by a psychiatrist. Does that reassure the hon. Member that there is a further layer of safeguards in this area?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

That is one of the additional safeguards in the Bill. This Bill has more in-built safeguards than any similar piece of legislation across the world. I think the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point: when a doctor has concerns about somebody’s mental state, they can escalate the case and seek further, specialist opinion.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I will make some progress, if I may, because I think I have indulged your patience for far too long, Ms McVey.

I am cautious about introducing this new test. I may not have persuaded everyone, but I have set out my reasons. We risk making the system overcomplicated. We would move away from the well-established mechanism under the Mental Capacity Act and into tiger country, with untried and untested systems that the courts have not considered, which will inevitably lead to challenge. There is no need to do that, because we already have robust mechanisms in place and doing so will merely lead to ambiguity and potential complications.

This is not me reaching this conclusion in isolation. Of course, there will always be voices on different sides of the debate, and we can frame the evidence we have heard to favour one set of arguments over another. However, I am significantly persuaded by the chief medical officer, given his wide experience as not just a clinician but a public policymaker. In his evidence to the Committee on 28 January, he said:

“It is not clear to me what problem people are trying to solve by doing that,”

—he means moving away from the Mental Capacity Act—

“given that the Mental Capacity Act clearly makes the point that the more severe the decision, the greater the degree of capacity that has to be assumed before people can actually take that decision.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 37, Q14.]

It is that foundation that we are building on, and it is central to how these things operate in practice.

Although I understand the position of the hon. Member for Richmond Park, and I have a degree of sympathy with those who support the amendments, I invite them to reflect, in the time we have left for this debate, on whether the amendments achieve their stated aim. Do they make the Bill better or do they make it more complicated and convoluted? I say that they make it more convoluted and that, despite the best of intentions, they should not be supported.

[Daniel Francis]

My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge knows I am an ally on many of these issues, but I will humbly disagree with her on some matters. I am not a lawyer or a doctor, but like many people here I speak from lived experience. I speak as the parent of a learning-disabled child, so I see the kinds of decisions that have to be made day to day, and the kinds of arguments and conversations that have to be had with people who presume that my child has more or less capacity than she has. Believe me, that is a constant, daily battle for me and my wife.

My daughter has 12 words and a severe sight impairment, which makes it very difficult for her to make some of her decisions, as well as other complexities—predominantly her cerebral palsy, which caused a brain injury at birth. Therefore, in my own way, although I am not a lawyer or a doctor, I have become a bit of an expert on some of the capacity issues that people encounter day by day. This morning, as I do most mornings, I read to her the three choices for her breakfast. I give her a bit of time to think about them and then I repeat them. We get yes or no to those three choices, and that is the choice she makes. Because of her severe sight impairment, when I put those three options in front of her, I have to lift them up in front of my face so that she can see them; if I put them much lower down, she would not be able to see them and make a choice. She would be able to make the choice through pointing if it was within a certain range.

I have doctors calling my wife and me all the time, asking to have a conversation with my daughter, despite their having read the notes saying that she is an 11-year-old with 12 words and a severe sight impairment. I therefore query—I will refer to some of the oral evidence in a moment—how well some aspects of the Mental Capacity Act are currently being carried out. Equally, I deal with people who suggest that she has a greater level of capacity than she does.

I accept—I have had this conversation with the hon. Member for Spen Valley on a number of occasions—that this legislation would not be applicable to my daughter. However, we heard in evidence from Mencap that the vast majority of people with learning disabilities in this country are not in the same position. They are living their day-to-day lives, living in supported accommodation and making the kinds of decision we have discussed in this debate, such as buying coffee and going to the bank.

As a result of my 20 years as a councillor, and in the last 11 years since our children were born, I have become involved with a number of local disability charities, and I know the decisions that people make when their child is at that transition age. They are trying to understand the complexity of taking a power of attorney for a child, as well as other decision-making issues. I spend a lot of time with parents who do not put those measures in place, because they do not understand the complexity in terms of age. We could therefore have a young adult relying on doctors who do not know them and on a judge—I have not seen an amendment on that issue, so I am still talking about a judge—to make a decision about capacity.

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

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Paul]

That is exactly right. As I have mentioned, I am not bringing in the concept of encouragement; it is already in the law and currently an offence. I am putting forward this logical amendment in order for the Bill to deal with that. If we do not do that, we have not circled the wagons.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

I have no doubt that my hon. Friend speaks to the amendment with very good intentions due to genuine concerns about the safeguards. We have talked a lot about coercion. Clause 1(2)(b) sets out a requirement that the person,

“has made the decision that they wish to end their own life voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it.”

“Pressured” is an important word. If we look at the case law, there are the comments of Lord Nicholls in the case of Royal Bank of Scotland plc v. Etridge (No. 2) in 2002. He looked at two components of the concept of undue influence. There are acts of improper pressure or coercion, such as unlawful threats, which fit with the coercion element of the Bill as drafted. There are also relationships where one has acquired over another a measure of influence or ascendency, of which the ascendent person takes unfair advantage without any specific acts of coercion. Could my hon. Friend set out why she thinks “unduly influence” would add something beyond what “pressured” already does in the Bill?

[Rebecca Paul]

My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable about these things and is well qualified on the legal side. I value his contributions on this matter. The reason I want to include “unduly influence” is because it deals with those more subtle forms of coercion. Arguably, it could be included in “coerced or pressured”, but by including “unduly influence” in the Bill it becomes more explicit that a clinician has to be looking for it. In the absence of the language, clinicians will not be required to look for those more subtle forms of influence.

The provision is something that is included in the assisted dying laws of other jurisdictions. We have the opportunity here to learn and benefit from jurisdictions that have already implemented it. We heard various witnesses give us very useful evidence during the sessions. For example, California includes “undue influence” in the law. We should recognise that there is value in including it here. It is a well-established legal term that is used in myriad situations, so it is relevant that we include it.

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

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I start by gently pushing back on what my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire said about this being a fork in the road. I do not see the Bill giving patients that ultimate option. They have the choice to opt for an assisted death while continuing with their palliative care all the way along; in fact, they could then decide that they did not wish to have an assisted death, although that opportunity would be open to them. I do not think that the choice is the binary one that has been presented; I am sure that was not the intention, but I just wanted to gently push back.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Before the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley continues, I should point out that when Members say “you” or “your” they are referring to me in the Chair. It has happened a couple of times. We all do it—we all make mistakes—but please make the effort not to use “you”.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to you, Chair, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate for her intervention. She is right: it is absolutely critical that patients are given the full information in order to make an informed choice. I do not think any of us would disagree with that. But actually that goes entirely with the wording of the Bill as it stands. The hon. Member for Stroud has already highlighted the relevant provision—clause (4)(4)(c), which states that the initial discussion must explain and discuss with the patient

“any available palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.”

Therefore a requirement to have those discussions is already stipulated in the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate makes an interesting point about who has that discussion. But are we saying that only a palliative care specialist is capable of having those discussions? Of course, those who work in the field are highly trained individuals, but we must not be unfair or do a huge disservice to other healthcare practitioners who provide excellent palliative care in this country.

My father was a general practitioner for more than 40 years. He provided a huge amount of palliative care throughout his career, both in the community and in hospices. Look at Marie Curie’s own website, which talks about the provision of palliative care in this country and very much about primary care provision and secondary care provision. Within secondary care, of course, are the specialists—clinical nurse specialists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists; I could go on. But of course, as the hon. Member for Stroud will know particularly well given his former profession, there is another body of general practitioners, community nurses, district nurses, advanced nurse practitioners, pharmacists and social workers, who are all involved in this process.

I think the amendment comes from a good place; at first blush, I can see absolutely where it is coming from. But despite that, it leads us down the bureaucratic thicket that Chris Whitty spoke about.

[Naz Shah]

Professor Sleeman’s evidence to me around palliative care says:

“‘Essential’ services are not provided: A good example is that our study of community services that are provided to people with advanced illness found that just 1 in 3 areas consistently provides a 24/7 palliative care telephone advice line—even though this has been a NICE recommendation since 2011…Another example is that the most recent NACEL audit (National audit) found just 60% of hospitals provide a 7 day face to face palliative care service— even though this is also a NICE recommendation, and was a recommendation in the One Chance to Get it Right report (that came out of the Neuberger review—around 2015.)”

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s important point, but does he agree that not every GP is able to keep abreast of all the palliative care advances being made, which palliative care consultants would know about?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention, which leads on to the point I was going to make. We are getting bogged down in nomenclature about what speciality is involved when this is actually about training. It is about whether the individual having the conversation has the requisite skills to have a meaningful conversation. Clauses 5(3)(a) and 8(6)(a) stipulate that the co-ordinating doctor or independent doctor

“has such training, qualifications and experience as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations”.

That is the key part. This is about ensuring that people having incredibly sensitive, challenging and difficult conversations with patients about choices available to them at the end of life have the requisite skills and knowledge to do so. That may not be applicable to each and every general practitioner, but those having those conversations should have that knowledge.

[Danny Kruger]

My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful speech, but I am concerned that he suggests that the skills required are simply the skills of conversation. The skills required are the skills to understand the patient’s condition and lay out very clearly to them their prognosis and the treatment options available to them.

With all respect to my hon. Friend’s father and other GPs, I cannot accept that every GP is fully qualified to understand the dying trajectory of the patient before them—perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm his belief that that is so. If that is true, what is the point of the palliative care profession? We have GPs already and are now introducing psychiatrists and social workers into the mix; I do not understand why on earth it should be regarded as unnecessary to include professionals in palliative care—the key skill that we all recognise as so important in this space. Why not?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I fear that my hon. Friend may be oversimplifying what I was saying. Perhaps I was not clear enough, so I will elucidate. I was certainly not suggesting that the required skills were merely those of being able to have a consultation and a conversation. I was talking about having the skills to have the information that needs to be imparted and the knowledge that underpins that and being able to articulate that within a consultation. It is a much wider picture than just having the communication skills—it is having the knowledge that underpins that. I am saying that that is not necessarily the domain only of someone who works in palliative care. There are a number of specialists who work within this field—it is a multidisciplinary field—and they all bring their expertise. The issue is about ensuring that anybody having these conversations has the knowledge base to conduct them properly.

[Naz Shah]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I will try to make some progress. I want to move on to the other point I want to address, which is around bogging down the whole process with layer upon layer of bureaucracy. We are talking about a relatively small group of patients who are in the last six months of life and are then battling against the system that is meant to be helping them. If we put in layer upon layer and hurdle upon hurdle, it will become a much more difficult system for people to navigate. That does not mean that it would be a less robust system, but it would be a more difficult system. We are trying to make life easier, not harder, for those patients. This comes back to the central point that Professor Whitty made in his evidence about overcomplicating Bills: we overcomplicate Bills out of good intentions, but rarely make the safeguards more robust—in truth, we make them less safe.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Go on—I am feeling generous.

[Juliet Campbell]

I want to go back to the point about making the Bill more complicated by putting layer upon layer on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West spoke about health inequalities and how not everyone is given the same advice to the same level. If we were to introduce a palliative care specialist we would guarantee that everybody was given the same advice and information. We could therefore help reduce the health inequalities and inequalities of access to information that we know exist in our healthcare system.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Member makes a valid point. The reality is that, regardless of specialty title, there will be individuals who are better placed to have certain conversations and discuss certain issues than others. I look back at my own clinical practice: some colleagues would have had a better bedside manner than others, for example. I do not think this comes down to the name of the specialty; it comes down to the underpinning skills and knowledge. That is the point I am trying to make.

We can get bogged down by saying, “Everybody has to see a palliative care specialist”. Of course, that is open to people: if they wish to have a referral to a palliative care specialist, they can see one. However, as the hon. Member for Stroud said, some people may not want that. We cannot be removing the autonomy of patients when their decision-making process is that they choose not to engage with that. They may want to speak to their GP because they have had a relationship with them over 30 or 40 years and have the patient-doctor relationship that is so important when dealing with these important discussions. Perhaps they would feel less comfortable having that discussion with a clinician they had just met for the very first time.

[Naz Shah]

rose—

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I will give way because the hon. Lady has been very patient.

[Naz Shah]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being generous with his time. I want to bring in something that is very real for me at the moment. As a result of a hit and run, I have nerve pain for which I receive steroid treatment. I had treatment a couple of weeks ago and suffer from pain at the moment. My doctor is not a specialist in nerve pain; he has to refer me to a musculoskeletal service and I have been waiting for over a year for surgery.

I mention that because we already have care pathways for specialisms such as nerve pain. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley referred earlier to somebody who had cancer and it was a horrible experience. I would like to have thought that in that instance they would have been offered tube feeding. However, to go back to the point, the GP does not necessarily have the skillset. My GP, and there are lots of them in that practice—it is a brilliant practice at Kensington Street—has to refer me on. That is the point of the Bill. The amendment speaks to developing an established care pathway. If we are to pass this legislation into law, we must ensure that there is a care pathway to explore palliative care.

At the moment clause 4(4), which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud referred to earlier, says this has to be explored in the wider term. However, what that looks like is not a specialty. For some people with cancer and palliative care needs and six months to live, their trajectories could be—

[Naz Shah]

Sorry, Mr Efford. How can a GP guarantee that all those options have been covered, even in that initial discussion?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. She makes a number of points. First, may I say that I am sorry about her own health issues? I think she hit the nail on the head when she said that the GP may not be able to offer that service. For instance, take shoulder injections. Some GPs can do a shoulder injection with steroids; some will refer to the hospital for it. My father was a GP who could do them, but others would have referred to me when I was an orthopaedic surgeon and I would have done them in clinic.

This will not be right for every single general practitioner; the issue is about having a cohort of general practitioners who have the skill and ability, and about having a flexible system that works for patients. It all circles back to the training point. The individuals who do this have to have the requisite skills. That, of course, will be set down in regulation.

The other point that the hon. Member for Bradford West made is that clause 4(4)(c) says that any clinician having that discussion must be able to explain

“any available palliative, hospice or other care.”

It therefore follows that if the clinician is unable to do that because of a lack of skill or knowledge, they should refer on to somebody who can do it. That is the fundamental principle of having informed consent and discussion with patients. If a clinician cannot provide that information, they ask for somebody who can. That was not uncommon in my practice: if I had something that was outside of my area of knowledge or specialist interest, I would refer it to a colleague. That is how those conversations take place.

The Bill as it stands allows that flexibility for patients without confining them. But it gives them the very welcome option of a palliative care referral; that is entirely open to them—it is not closed off from them. Of course, they will be fed into the palliative care route anyway, following the trigger of their terminal diagnosis. They will be going on the journey, and having further conversations around their end of life care. Those are the points that I wish to make.

[Rebecca Paul]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am feeling generous—it is a Tuesday.

[Rebecca Paul]

A thought has suddenly been triggered: we are talking as if the provision of this service is undertaken by the NHS, but what are my hon. Friend’s thoughts if the service were being delivered privately? How does that interact with his automatic assumption that there would be a referral to a palliative care specialist?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I do not think that offends the principle at all. Whether I was working within the NHS or the private sector, if a patient requested an onward referral to a different specialist, I would action that. If I did not have the requisite skills or knowledge, or felt that they would be better served by a different speciality, I would refer on to another clinician. I do not see how it would be treated any differently in the NHS than it would be privately. I am afraid that I do not follow that argument.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I will address the amendments in two different ways. I will start by looking at the technical issues around amendment 281, and then I will look at why I believe, as other colleagues have said, that the amendments are not necessary given what already exists both in the Bill and in terms of good practice in our health service.

First, I worry that amendment 281 will not have the effect that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) intends. Clause 1(2), to which the amendment relates, provides an overview of the other clauses in the Bill, and therefore cross-refers to sections 5 to 22. Clause 1(2) does not impose duties on persons in and of itself. The duties are set out in the later clauses to which it refers. Adding an additional subsection to clause 1, as proposed by the amendment, would not result in a requirement that the person must meet a palliative care specialist. That is a technical detail to reflect on.

In addition, the term “palliative care specialist” is not a defined term. Palliative medicine is a designated speciality of the General Medical Council, and a doctor can apply to be entered on to the GMC specialist register for the speciality provided that they have the specialist medical qualification, training or experience. However, the current wording of the amendment means that it is not clear whether it is seeking to require the person concerned to meet with one of those specialist doctors, or whether a meeting with another medical professional specialising in palliative care—for example, a specialist palliative care nurse—would suffice. There is no equivalent specialist register for specialist palliative care nurses. It is a technical issue, but an important one.

I also point out that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central has put an incorrect explanatory note with the amendment, which refers to terminal illness. That might just be an error, but I wanted to point that out.

Coming on to the broader grouping of the provisions: as has been said by colleagues, the amendments are tabled with really good intentions by someone who cares passionately about the palliative care sector. But they are not necessary given the process that is already set out by the Bill. Both doctors already have to discuss all treatment options, and must make a referral if they have any doubt about the diagnosis. It is very clear from clauses 4 and 9 that both the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor must discuss all treatment options with the patient, so they will have all the options laid out before them. That is really important because we have to think about what happens in reality. This initial discussion, in many cases, may actually take place with a palliative care doctor, and in many cases it will be highly likely, given the nature of the conditions we are talking about, that the patient may already be receiving treatment or advice from a palliative care team.

We seem to have created a narrative where this conversation is happening in isolation. Actually, as other colleagues have alluded to, we have a patient-centred approach in our healthcare. This person does not just suddenly arrive and have this one random conversation. I am sure medical colleagues will correct me if I am wrong, but if a doctor is dealing with a condition of which they have very limited knowledge, one of the first things they would do would be to refer to a specialist.

As is covered in clause 9(3)(a), if the doctor has any

“doubt as to whether the person being assessed is terminally ill,”

they must

“refer the person for assessment by a registered medical practitioner who holds qualifications in or has experience of the diagnosis and management of the illness, disease or condition in question;”

Clause 9(2)(a) also states that both doctors must assess the patient’s

“medical records and make such other enquiries as the assessing doctor considers appropriate;”

They can speak to anyone they want to, and they would in reality—of course that is what they would do. They would not sit there and think, “Oh, I don’t know enough about this condition so I will just keep going.” They would refer to specialists.

It is also really important to acknowledge what goes on at the moment. I was looking at some research last night: NHS England also has comprehensive guidance on personalised palliative and end-of-life care through a comprehensive personalised care model. None of this stops with the introduction of assisted dying as a choice for people. It would continue to happen. Patients are already getting that really good level of care.

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

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

By making the change in the amendment, we would make sure that individuals considering assisted dying understand that the doctor is unable to provide a prognosis with complete certainty. Prognosis is often not an exact science, and it can vary depending on numerous variables, including the course of the disease, the patient’s response to treatment and other unforeseeable factors. If we are giving doctors the essentially impossible task of proving “inevitably” that death will occur in six months—

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Juliet Campbell]

I have almost finished, so I will carry on.

If we give doctors the essentially impossible task of proving that death will inevitability occur in six months, there is a risk of an individual being advised to stop treatment, to accelerate them artificially into a serious or terminal state or speed it up to ensure their eligibility. As medical intervention is so key in the prognosis of a seriously ill patient, it makes no sense to me to use language that is not consistent with real-life medical experiences or reasonably within the scope of medical diagnosis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I know the hon. Member has a huge amount of experience on this matter given his career, so I thank him for that contribution.

It must not be forgotten that it is the nature of such illnesses for there to be periods of unwellness, when people are at their lowest ebb, and it is our job to protect them from something that could sound appealing at that moment in time. The crux of this issue is that—subject to the point that the hon. Member for Spen Valley made about the improvements that we may now see following the amendments that we have just discussed—the Bill makes no distinction between a condition that is inevitably fatal and one that could be substantially slowed with treatment.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend is making a valid argument, but I want to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud. He talked about illnesses that are inevitably progressive and cannot be reversed by treatment. For type 1 diabetes—I think that is what my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) is addressing, as opposed to other forms of diabetes—a person either has insulin or does not.

[The Chair]

Order. Interventions should be pretty short, and Members really should be asking a question of the Member who has the floor, not making a mini-statement. Will they stick to that, please?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Forgive me, Chair. I will come to the point. If the person does not have insulin, the diabetes could be treated by administering it. Does my hon. Friend accept that, in those circumstances, it would fall within this clause?

[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?

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

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

I ask hon. Members to support amendment 277. It will give patients time to think. It will give them that time near the beginning of the assisted dying process, whereas the Bill as currently drafted gives them time almost at the end of the process. Most importantly, it will give patients what senior psychiatrists have asked for: simply put, the chance for people who have received a shocking diagnosis and prognosis to work with their doctors and social carers to put new treatment plans in place.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

I rise to set out why—reluctantly—I cannot support amendments 403 and 404, which have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire. It is not because of the principle involved, because my hon. Friend was very clear in setting out the amendments. They would not provide for a prescriptive situation where an individual must tell their family. A range of options are set out, which I anticipate that any sensible and responsible doctor or clinician would take a patient through, encouraging them to involve their family in their decision making.

The issue that I have is around the legal clarity of the wording of the amendments, because under the English and Welsh legal system there is no statutory definition of “family”. There is a concept of family, but the concept of family to me may be very different from that of my neighbour, or from that of someone who lives in another city. For example, for some people stepbrothers, stepsisters and step-parents are very much part of their family; for others, they are not. For some people, unmarried couples with children are a family; for others, they are not. For some people, unmarried couples without children are a family; for others, they are not.

[Danny Kruger]

I take that point; families are difficult to define. Nevertheless, the Bill currently refers to the opportunity for a doctor, or the suggestion that a doctor,

“in so far as the assessing doctor considers it appropriate, advise the person to consider discussing the request with their next of kin and other persons they are close to.”

That is more precise. Would my hon. Friend accept an amendment along the lines that I have proposed, prior to the first declaration, but using the language that is currently in the Bill about

“their next of kin and other persons they are close to”?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

That would satisfy me. The reason I say that is because at the moment the wording is too broad and ill-defined. The question is: is this about the closeness and proximity of a relationship? The suggested wording that my hon. Friend just put forward would be much closer to that and much clearer, and more akin with the language of medical registration. When someone turns up in A&E, they are asked to give the name of their next of kin. That defines the closeness, the proximity and the permanency of that relationship.

If my hon. Friend was perhaps to consider withdrawing this amendment and tabling it again in an alternative form, or rewording it, that would certainly be something that I would be open to supporting. I have outlined why, as the amendments currently stand, I cannot support them.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Although it is for Parliament to decide whether to progress the Bill, this Government remain committed to ensuring the legal robustness and workability of all legislation. For that reason, the Government have worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, and some amendments have been mutually agreed upon by her and the Government: in this group, those are amendments 184, 418, 420, 195, 209, 220, 421, 203, 204, 207, 208 and 214.

This group of amendments replaces the forms set out in the schedules to the Bill, with the requirement for the forms to be set out in regulations by the Secretary of State. The amendments also make provision about the content and form of the first and second declarations, statements and reports.

Amendment 184 provides that the form of the first declaration must be set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State, as opposed to in schedule 1 as currently drafted. Operationally, using regulations will allow for consultation in relation to the form and content of the declaration. It will also provide flexibility to tailor or update the content of the declaration.

The effect of amendment 289 would be to limit those able to act as a second witness to a first declaration to registered clinicians, though that term is not defined in the amendment. In normal usage, “registered clinician” is broader than “registered medical practitioner”, so practically the amendment may lead to a wide range of registered healthcare professionals being able to act as a witness to a first declaration under the Bill.

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

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire for the amendment. The set-up of this scheme is similar to other NHS services. Essentially, a medical professional will opt in to provide the service. That will involve extensive training followed by a short exam, as it does in Australia and California, after which they will be accredited under the scheme—that is how I understand it will happen in the UK. No one is forced to provide the service, but training is offered and many doctors take that up. Therefore, it is a medically based service.

The British Medical Association will then negotiate the fee for doing the assessment with the Department of Health and Social Care. That is not about agreeing to provide the service; it is about doing the assessment. That is mirrored in many aspects of general practice, which itself is a private service contracted to the NHS. It is very complicated. It would be inaccurate to portray this as a private service, where people may profiteer, as it is based on medical professionals performing a duty for which they are trained and for which the price is clear to the general public, because it is negotiated and published.

On publishing the number of patients seen by a single doctor and the fees that doctor has accrued from the scheme, that is not something that happens for things like minor operations, which we perform outside general medical services, although we are rewarded by the Government at a set fee. There are other such services—inserting a coil, for example—where we are given a certain amount of money.

How this is arranged is very complicated. Doing appraisals, being a trainer and all these things have a price attached, and we need training before we can perform the service. I see this scheme as no different. The problem with publishing how many patients have been seen by a single doctor regarding assisted dying is that it puts a target on that doctor. As we have seen with abortion clinics and even this Committee—certain Committee members have been targeted by the press for what they have said—this is a very sensitive issue, and it would not be fair to publish the figures so that doctors could be targeted in the press and made to feel unworthy in all those ways. It is extremely difficult.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful argument about doctors being vilified in the press, but does he believe there is a risk that it may go further and present a genuine safety risk to those doctors?

[Dr Opher]

Exactly. That is what worries me. I acknowledge what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said about pharmaceutical sponsorship, but I do not think that has anything to do with what we are talking about here. What we are talking about is specifying what doctors are doing as part of their daily job, for which they are trained. It would not be fair to publish those figures and put those doctors at risk.

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

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I will speak briefly to this group of amendments, setting out why I support amendments 462, 497 and 498, but oppose amendment 463. My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire set out very eloquently the reasons behind amendment 462. On the one hand, there is a cogent argument that it is not strictly necessary in the light of the provisions set out in subsection (4)(b) and (c), which set out that the individual wishing to have an assisted death must have

“a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”

and is

“requesting provision of that assistance voluntarily”.

However, it appears to me a logical and entirely appropriate extension of the intentions behind clause 18(4) to express that in slightly more explicit terms in the Bill by adopting my hon. Friend’s amendment 462. It strikes me that, after doing so, the Bill would provide a further check and balance that creates no greater onus on either the individual seeking an assisted death nor the co-ordinating doctor who is assisting them. In those circumstances, it appears eminently sensible to improve the Bill in that way. From the indications we have already heard, it appears that there is significant support for that amendment.

I struggle with amendment 463, which would remove paragraph (c) from clause 18(6). The effect would be to prohibit the co-ordinating doctor from providing assistance to the person seeking an assisted death, either through ingestion or other self-administration of that substance, in any circumstance. In my view, the amendment would make the operation of the Bill, were it to become an Act, unnecessarily restrictive. Clause 18(7) already stipulates that

“the decision to self-administer the approved substance and the final act of doing so must”—

I stress the word “must”—

“be taken by the person to whom the substance has been provided”.

On any interpretation of the construct of that, it is clear that the person seeking an assisted death must be the active participant in the process; it is mandatory. There is no discretion in that, by virtue of the word “must”.

Were we to remove clause 18(6)(c) and the Bill passed into law, it would have the effect, in what is an entirely legal process, that a doctor would be unable to aid a patient in any circumstance. For example, they would not be allowed to hold a glass or steady a straw as a patient moved towards it to imbibe a substance. Those are circumstances that are entirely foreseeable, when through the ravages of an illness, somebody is limited in what they are physically able to do. Of course, assistance could be provided in alternative ways—for instance, through assistive technology, which we have seen being used in other jurisdictions. The Swiss, for example, use a significant amount of assistive technology in administering and assisting the process of self-administration at the end of life.

[Danny Kruger]

My point is that it is very difficult to draw a line here. I recognise the scenario that my hon. Friend raises: why should a nurse not be able to hold a straw for a person to drink from? I might say that should be acceptable; however, I do not think it should be acceptable for the nurse to tip the pills into the patient’s mouth. Does he think that scenario would be acceptable? Or to give another one, would it be acceptable to actively provide force on top of a patient’s finger to press a syringe? Would he regard that as acceptable assistance?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

That is why clause 18(7) is so important: the final act must be undertaken by the person seeking an assisted death. The example my hon. Friend gives of tipping tablets into a mouth is a final act. Pushing a syringe is a final act. There is a significant distinction between an individual or practitioner holding a cup with a straw and the person seeking an assisted death moving their mouth towards the straw, sucking from it and imbibing the substance and the passive act of a substance being raised to that individual’s lips and poured in without any movement by the individual seeking an assisted death themselves.

[Danny Kruger]

When we talk about this in future debates, it might be appropriate for this conversation to be referenced. I think my hon. Friend is suggesting that it should be acceptable, and that assisted death would be legal, as long as the patient moved their head towards the straw and cup, and that it would be illegal, according to my hon. Friend’s definition, were a doctor applying a cup to a patient’s lips and the drugs fell in by gravity. Is that right? Is that how judges in future should determine whether assistance has crossed the line?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

It is very clear from subsection (7) that this must be an active step taken by the individual. There is a risk that we go down a rabbit hole in terms of—[Interruption.] I am sure my hon. Friend would like me to finish my point. We risk going down a rabbit hole in drawing examples. I raised the example of a cup, but of course there are much wider assistive technologies that can be used and are used in different jurisdictions. I gave the example to illustrate the point that this is an active act, not a passive act.

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

The hon. Gentleman mentions subsection (7). Subsection (8) states quite clearly that it

“does not authorise the coordinating doctor to administer an approved substance to another person with the intention of causing that person’s death.”

I think the passive and active roles are quite clear between the two subsections.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I agree entirely with the right hon. Member’s interpretation of the Bill.

There is a further unintended consequence of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire, which I am sure is not his intention but would sadly be the effect: were an individual to qualify under the Bill, should it pass and were the amendment to be adopted, they would inevitably be forced to take the final decision at an earlier stage. If there is a restriction that they can have no assistance whatsoever in performing the act, they will end up making the decision when they know that they have the entire physical strength available for them to do it, and that actually brings forward the point at which they choose to die to an earlier stage.

[Kit Malthouse]

After 10 years of campaigning on this issue and spending so much time with people whose family have gone to Switzerland, one of the things they consistently say is that people went to Switzerland much earlier than they wanted to because they had to go while they were still physically able. I think this is a critical point that people have to realise. We should not compel people to do this earlier than they would otherwise wish to simply because of these restrictions.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My right hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point. I think there is a consensus among the Committee that there is no desire for people to take this ultimate step at an earlier stage than is absolutely necessary for them. My very real fear is that, were we to adopt this amendment, we would bring forward that point of decision.

[Danny Kruger]

The logic of that argument is to allow physician-administered suicide, because there will be a point at which people are physically unable to perform the act but have capacity, and their autonomy should be respected—

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

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 463, in clause 18, page 12, line 34, leave out paragraph (c).

Amendment 497, in clause 18, page 13, line 9, leave out “decides” and insert

“informs the coordinating doctor that they have decided”.

This amendment provides that the duty to remove the approved substance arises on the coordinating doctor being informed that the person has decided not to self-administer the substance.

Amendment 498, in clause 18, page 13, line 10, leave out

“that the substance is not”

and insert

“to believe that the substance will not be”.

This amendment clarifies the circumstances in which the coordinating doctor is under a duty to remove the approved substance from the person.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire was mid-intervention when the Committee adjourned this morning, and I would not want to pull the rug from underneath him. Does he wish to intervene again?

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was simply asking what causes him to object to physician-administered assistance to die. If he supports the principle of assisted suicide and believes in doctor autonomy, why does he not think that doctors should be able to administer the fatal dose?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

This gets to the root of how the law has operated in another jurisdiction, Switzerland, where Dignitas has managed this scenario over the past 40 years or so. The key—these are the words that its own guidance uses—is ensuring that the power of control remains with the person seeking the assisted death. That provides the individual who is making the choice with the ultimate autonomy at the end in controlling the circumstances and the manner in which they pass.

I have set out why I feel that although amendment 463 arises from good intentions, it would not achieve what is intended. There is a real risk that the constraints that adopting the amendment would create would lead to the regrettable unintended consequence of individuals being forced to have an assisted death at an earlier stage than they would otherwise have wished.

I can deal with amendments 497 and 498 in short order. They would tighten up the Bill by providing greater clarity around the circumstances in which the substance would be removed from the presence of the individual who had previously indicated a wish to have an assisted death. Amendment 497 specifies that the individual would need to set out to the co-ordinating doctor that they no longer desired to go through with the process. In my view, that is eminently sensible. Amendment 498 elaborates on the Bill to provide greater clarity to those who will be operating it. It will make it a much more workable piece of legislation. I support both amendments.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. Before I speak to amendments 497 and 498, on which the Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, let me address amendments 462 and 463.

Amendment 462 would amend clause 18 to require the co-ordinating doctor to explain to the person that they do not have to proceed and self-administer the approved substance, and that they may still cancel their declaration. Although it is not specified, it is presumed that the amendment refers to the second declaration that the person will have made. The Committee may wish to note that there is already a requirement in clause 18(4)(b) that,

“at the time the approved substance is provided”,

the co-ordinating doctor must be satisfied that the person

“has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”.

The purpose of amendment 463 is to limit what the co-ordinating doctor is permitted to do in relation to providing the person with an approved substance under clause 18. As the clause stands, subsection (6) sets out the activities that the co-ordinating doctor is permitted to carry out in respect of an approved substance provided to the person under subsection (2). It states that the co-ordinating doctor may

“(a) prepare that substance for self-administration by that person,

(b) prepare a medical device which will enable that person to self-administer the substance, and

(c) assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.”

Additionally, subsection (7) provides that

“the decision to self-administer the approved substance and the final act of doing so must be taken by the person to whom the substance has been provided.”

Amendment 463 would remove subsection (6)(c), which would result in the co-ordinating doctor being unable to assist the person

“to ingest or otherwise self-administer”

the approved substance. The co-ordinating doctor would still be permitted to prepare that substance for self-administration and to prepare a medical device to enable the person to self-administer the substance. This could mean that a co-ordinating doctor may not be able to provide assistance such as helping the person to sit up to help with swallowing, or explaining how the medical device for self-administering the substance works. This could result in practical difficulties in self-administration of the substance and/or place the co-ordinating doctor in a difficult position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am absolutely certain that if the amendment had been in the original Bill, the Bill would not have passed Second Reading, because it would have validated the argument that many of us made that the implication of assisted suicide is euthanasia. The distinction between them, while valid in the abstract, does not apply in practice, and that distinction will be quickly overridden in time. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Although I have certain sympathies with these amendments, I do not feel that they are necessary or desirable. They are not necessary because of the provisions that are already stipulated in clause 18(6)(b), which provides the co-ordinating doctor with the ability to prepare

“a medical device which will enable that person to self-administer the substance”.

That subsection, in effect, negates the scenario that is put forward in amendment 350 around dysphagia or the loss of a limb. It would permit, for example, the use of a nasogastric tube or a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tube to be used for the administration of the substance in the case of dysphagia. In the case of the functional loss of limbs, as was discussed in the debate on the previous group, a range of assisted technologies are available that would remove the barriers that that would present.

Beyond the necessity, or lack of necessity, of these amendments, I fear that they create legal uncertainty, which is clearly undesirable and, in this instance, could have a serious and significant unintended consequence through the amendments’ interaction with clause 24. Subsection (3) of that clause inserts proposed new section 2AA of the Suicide Act 1961, which is an exemption to that Act in respect of the assistance provided under this Bill. In effect, proposed new section 2AA disapplies sections 2(1) and 2A(1) of the Suicide Act where the provision of assistance is done in accordance with the Bill. Those sections specifically relate to an act

“capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person”.

Introducing the concept of additional assistance, as these amendments would, creates a legal uncertainty. The word “additional” creates a further concept that is beyond assistance but is, thus far, ill defined. Would it go as far as, for example, the clinician taking full control of administering the substance? It is entirely unclear. It would therefore place the clinician in an invidious position as to what it would mean for them to provide additional assistance in such circumstances. As I read the interplay between the Suicide Act and the proposed legislation, the clinician would not then be exempt by virtue of clause 24(3), leaving them open to prosecution under the Act.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful for that; I particularly respect my hon. Friend’s concern to protect the doctors from any confusion in the law they might be operating under. Just to take him back to the question of technology resolving what I regard as an insuperable problem—the difference between assistance and administration—is it my understanding that my hon. Friend would oppose a patient’s being able to ask a doctor to administer a lethal drug to him or her, but that he would support a patient’s being able to ask a computer to administer a lethal drug to him or her? Would he accept the computer performing the act at the patient’s request?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head, because it is the patient who is driving the decision. They are making that act by activating the electronic device—the computer or whatever it may be in terms of assistive technology—but they have the power and control over that decision-making process, which is completely distinct from a clinician doing that act. It is distinct because it is activated by the patient—by the person making that decision—and that is why I draw the distinction. My hon. Friend may not agree, but that is my rationale for drawing a distinction between the two.

[Dr Opher]

rose—

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am being ambushed by the left.

[Dr Opher]

I agree with all the hon. Gentleman’s points. In terms of assistance, what we are talking about, potentially, if the technology arrives at that, is that the doctor may be able to put a Venflon into the patient’s vein, but they would not put the drug through the Venflon into the vein. That would enable the patient to have control. That is the type of assistance that could be quite useful in this scenario, but it would not involve the doctor actually delivering the drug.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful for that helpful and thoughtful intervention.

For the reasons I have set out, I consider that the amendments create unnecessary and highly undesirable legal confusion, so I shall not support them.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Currently, clause 18(6) permits the co-ordinating doctor, in respect of an approved substance provided to the person under subsection (2), to undertake the following activities: prepare the approved substance for self-administration; prepare a medical device to enable self-administration of the approved substance; and assist the person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance. Furthermore, subsection (8) expressly provides that subsection (6)

“does not authorise the coordinating doctor to administer an approved substance to another person with the intention of causing that person’s death.”

Amendment 350 seeks to enable the co-ordinating doctor, in the presence of an independent witness, to provide “additional assistance” to the person to administer the approved substance. Such assistance can be provided only where the person has authorised it, and where the person is

“permanently and irreversibly unable to self-administer the substance”

due to a significant risk of choking due to difficulty swallowing—dysphagia—or loss of the use of their limbs. The term “additional assistance” is not defined in these amendments.

Amendment 351 is consequential to amendment 350 and would require any decision to authorise additional assistance for the self-administration of the substance to be made by the person to whom the substance has been provided. Amendment 352 would create an exception to the condition in clause 18(8), and would have the effect of permitting the co-ordinating doctor to administer an approved substance to another person with the intention of causing that person’s death where the criteria introduced in amendment 350 are met—that is, where the co-ordinating doctor is satisfied that the person is permanently and irreversibly unable to self-administer the substance, and that the person has authorised that the additional assistance be provided.

Our assessment is that the amendments would enable the co-ordinating doctor to administer the approved substance to the person, rather than merely assisting the person, in the limited circumstances provided for in clause 18(6), to self-administer. That would be a significant change to one of the fundamental principles of the promoter’s Bill—that the final act of administering the approved substance must be taken by the person themselves, and not by a co-ordinating doctor. That is a policy matter and a decision for the Committee.

However, should the amendments be accepted, further amendments may be needed to ensure that this provision is fully legally coherent and workable in several areas. First, amendment 350 does not define who qualifies as an independent witness—for example, whether this would have to be a health professional or whether it could be a family member. Secondly, it does not address whether anyone would be disqualified from being an independent witness, as provided for through clause 36, which is entitled “Disqualification from being witness or proxy”.

Finally, as drafted, amendment 350 does not detail how authorisation of the additional assistance must be obtained and/or recorded in order to be valid. It also does not require that any details about the independent witness be recorded. This could lead to difficulties in complying with and/or evidencing that the requirements to provide the additional assistance have been met. By extension, there will be a lack of clarity over when and how the criminal provisions are to apply. I hope that those observations were helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 408, in the name of the hon. Member for Broxtowe. I also support amendments 499 and 210, in the name of the hon. Member for Spen Valley, and amendment 22, in the name of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato).

Clause 19 states that

“the coordinating doctor may authorise, in writing, a named registered medical practitioner to carry out the coordinating doctor’s functions under section 18…A registered medical practitioner may be authorised under subsection (1) only if…the person to whom the assistance is being provided has consented, in writing, to the authorisation of that practitioner”.

I support amendment 408, which adds that the person must also have been consulted.

I am sure the Committee recognises that, even where someone has basic training and the experience specified, delegating care at the end of life is something that must be done with great care, given the vulnerability of patients. If a co-ordinating doctor has guided someone through this profound and significant process, there are some intrinsic risks that come with delegating the administration of the final approved substance to someone else. I concede that there will be situations where a substitute may be required, but it will not be the doctor that the patient has trusted, confided in and relied on.

A new doctor will of course do the final checks for capacity and consent, but they do not necessarily have any specific detailed knowledge of the patient and may be unable to pick up less obvious cues that someone who knows the patient may be better able to. That gap matters, and history shows that it can lead to problems. The risks of delegation are well documented. If we take the Mid Staffordshire NHS foundation trust scandal in 2005 to 2009, detailed in the Francis report, consultants often delegated tasks to junior staff or nurses without adequate supervision, which contributed to poor care and an estimated 400 to 1,200 excess deaths. Patients suffered from neglect, untreated infections, dehydration and medication errors. That was partly because delegated staff lacked the training or authority to act decisively, and consultants failed to monitor effectively.

In surgical contexts, delegation can also falter. A 2006 Daily Mail report highlighted NHS payouts exceeding £1 million for wrong-site surgeries, where consultants delegated preparatory or operative tasks to trainees or assistants, who then misidentified sites—for example, operating on the wrong leg or tooth. Those errors often stemmed from inadequate briefing or supervision, pointing to a systemic delegation risk. We have to be really aware of this.

Those examples suggest that when consultants delegate, whether to junior doctors or other practitioners, including their peers, things can go wrong if communication breaks down, or if the replacement lacks equivalent expertise or is simply not aware of some of the detailed information. In order to manage some of the risks better, patients must be consulted about who takes over their care, and not just asked to consent after the co-ordinating doctor has decided what will happen.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Given that valid consent requires a voluntary and informed decision, can my hon. Friend set out why that would not involve being consulted on the matter in any event?