Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebatePeter Prinsley
Main Page: Peter Prinsley (Labour - Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket)Department Debates - View all Peter Prinsley's debates with the Department of Health and Social Care
(2 days, 23 hours ago)
Commons ChamberThank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am conscious of those comments and will try to limit my remarks to new clause 13 and some of the amendments to it.
The Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Pathologists, the Association for Palliative Medicine and the British Geriatrics Society have all said that there are problems with this Bill, and I have heard nothing from its sponsor, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater)—despite trying to intervene on her a number of times—about what she has done to ensure that their concerns have been addressed. This brings us directly to a fundamental concern: namely, the means by which assisted death would be carried out under new clause 13. The impact assessment for the Bill recognises that
“The safety and efficacy of those substances used for assisted dying is currently difficult to assess”.
Does the hon. Member agree that the barbiturates that we are considering are conventional agents? They have been used in anaesthesia to cause loss of consciousness and suppression of respiration for generations. These are not novel substances.
I obviously respect the hon. Gentleman, given his medical background, but as far as I am aware those substances have not yet been used for murdering people, which is what we are going to do here. That leads me neatly on—