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

Sarah Green Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

Initial discussions with registered medical practitioners

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

I beg to move amendment 278, in clause 4, page 2, line 16, leave out from beginning to “nothing” in line 16 and insert—

“(1A) No registered medical practitioner may raise the subject of the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act with a person if that person has made an advanced decision which has been recorded in their medical records that they will not in future wish to seek assistance under this Act.

(1B) The provisions in subsection (1A) do not prevent a person indicating to a registered medical practitioner that they wish to change their previous decision and seek assistance under the Act if they have the capacity to do so.

(2) Other than the condition in subsection (1A),”.

This amendment would prevent a doctor from raising assisted dying with a patient if that patient had previously recorded an advanced decision that they would not in future wish to seek assistance under the Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Green]

I will be brief. Amendment 278, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) has some merit. It seeks to offer a more formal protection to those who are certain that they do not, and will not, want to avail themselves of the choice to end their life if they are terminally ill at any point in the future. It attempts to do so through an advance decision recorded on their medical records.

A person’s ability to record their wishes now, as opposed to at some future crisis point, might allay a number of concerns, in particular for those who are fearful of coercion. Being able to say, “This is not for me”, and knowing that it will not be raised with them, might offer some people a degree of reassurance, so I think that the amendment has some merit. It also allows for such an advance decision to be reversed—it allows for people to change their mind.

What is not clear to me is how enforceable this provision would be, or what legal status such an advance decision would have. I have great sympathy with the aim of the amendment, so I am keen to hear from the Minister on the point. It may be that an alternative amendment that achieves a similar aim can be tabled to a later clause, if amendment 278, as drafted, is not workable.