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

Debate between Rebecca Paul and Neil Shastri-Hurst

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Paul]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would make the advertising of services by a co-ordinating and/or independent doctor by a person in the course of a business an offence with a sentence of up to two years in prison or a fine or both. As we have discussed previously, we will likely see private provision of assisted dying services, if the Bill is approved. That will create a potentially lucrative opportunity for private businesses, particularly if provision on the NHS is not consistent across the country or is overwhelmed.

“Advertising” means the techniques used to bring attention to a product or service with the aim of presenting it as something a potential customer might need or want. The overarching aim of advertising by a business is to ultimately sell more of a product or service. We must keep that overarching reason in mind when considering the amendment. It would be incredibly inappropriate for such services to be advertised on billboards, public transport or daytime telly, targeting those who may be approaching the end of their life, with ads run repeatedly along with those for stairlifts and life insurance. Such advertising could also undermine our national suicide prevention strategy by normalising suicide in certain situations. It becomes much harder to say to people that suicide is not the answer if we are content to say that it is in certain situations.

I can only imagine some of the difficult conversations that could be generated from an advert seen by a young girl or boy already battling with suicidal thoughts. How does a parent or guardian explain why suicide is not right for them? Imagine the potential impact on men, too. As we all know, suicide is a leading cause of death in men in this country. In 2022, for males between the ages of 20 and 34, one in four deaths was categorised as “intentional self-harm” or “event of undetermined intent”. That is a shocking statistic. That is why banning the advertising of such services is so important.

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

My hon. Friend is making an passionate argument. I think most of us would agree that billboards and television adverts would be egregious. I note that subsection (3) talks about “electronic form”. That could involve email correspondence between parties. How would that not be an advertisement under the amendment?

[Rebecca Paul]

I think we would be talking about an advert via electronic form, marketing a particular service. We would have to go back to the meaning of “advert” to answer that. Obviously, there are broader ways of advertising on social media and so on, which I also seek to prevent with the amendment.

That is why banning the advertising of such services is so important, so that a pro-suicide message is not inadvertently delivered to millions of people who assisted dying is not appropriate for. We have to recognise that there are vulnerable people out there who could be influenced by it. It is my view that conversations about assisted dying should happen in person, between the relevant doctor and the patient; they should not be prompted by a TV ad or something seen on a bus. Ads should not be coming up on someone’s Facebook feed every time they log on.

I hope Committee members will support this common-sense amendment. I think that for it to be properly effective, it needs to be expanded to also cover clinics or other organisations advertising assisted dying services more broadly. I very much welcome the opportunity to work with Ministers and the Bill’s sponsor to get this right, if the Committee is disposed to supporting such an amendment.

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

Debate between Rebecca Paul and Neil Shastri-Hurst

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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?

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

Debate between Rebecca Paul and Neil Shastri-Hurst

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Paul]

Obviously, I am speaking to the Bill as is. I do not want to presume the result of any vote. I assume none of us here knows how a vote may go.

All boxes checked, yet it is entirely possible that the margin of error could add up to the point where a doctor, when standing back and looking holistically at the situation, might feel there is sufficient risk to warrant not signing off. It is that niggle again—sometimes the sum of the parts is not the right answer. That is what amendment 257 seeks to do: to allow that the doctor that element of override discretion where there is a real risk that any of the eligibility requirements are not met.

My understanding is that the “real risk” test is taken from the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. That Court has held that states are under a duty to protect an individual from suicide if they are aware of a real and immediate risk of suicide. Doctors are already required under the Human Rights Act to assess of when there is a real risk of suicide, so it is a familiar legal test, I believe. Ensuring that it applies to the eligibility criteria, in particular those dealing with autonomy and voluntariness, may strengthen the Bill, make it safer and help ensure compliance.

I will welcome the Minister’s views, however, on whether the test is the right one legally given the spirit of what the amendment seeks to do. I appreciate that this is a technical legal point, and I am not a lawyer. I am also open to the argument that “real risk” might not be the appropriate test for every one of the eligibility criteria, so again a view from the Minister would be helpful. If the Government and the promoter of the Bill accept that this test should apply to the issues of capacity, clear and settled will, voluntariness, and absence of coercion or pressure, I will be happy for the Government to table a tidying amendment on Report to limit the test to those matters. My intention is to press the amendment to a vote and I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting it.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Mrs Harris.

I will speak to this octet of amendments and set out why I cannot support them. In my view, they are a classic example of legislative embroidery. If we wanted a better example, we could not find one. Sadly, they would achieve nothing but add a great deal of confusion to the situation.

Throughout the Bill, a clear set of criteria must be fulfilled in order to move from one stage of the process to another. To lay on, additionally, a frankly woolly and ill-defined legal test that has not been set out in in this legislation and that overrides those criteria, without any reasoning to underpin it or any sense of purpose behind it, is simply confusing. The test would make the Bill less operable in reality, and it undermines everything that comes before it—there is no purpose to having criteria that we have to move through if we are then to say, “Actually, that is null and void, because I have a sense that I am just not comfortable with it.” If one is not comfortable with one stage of the criteria, that is enough for it to fall or to be referred to someone else—for example, to a capacity assessment, as has been suggested. The amendment is legal nonsense. I see where it is coming from, but it is legal nonsense in how it is drafted, and it does not assist in making a more meaningful or operable Bill. Therefore, I cannot support it.

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

Debate between Rebecca Paul and Neil Shastri-Hurst

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

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

Debate between Rebecca Paul and Neil Shastri-Hurst

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[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 (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Rebecca Paul and Neil Shastri-Hurst

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 (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Rebecca Paul and Neil Shastri-Hurst

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.