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

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Lewis Atkinson]

Q I have one follow-up on that. At the moment, we are aware that there are instances across the NHS every day where people make decisions around refusing the treatment that would be required to prolong their life. Doctors, nurses and the healthcare team would be involved in assessing capacity and coercion around those cases. Can you tell me a bit about any learnings from that, about the levels of skill required in the current practice around refusing lifesaving treatment, and about how that might be taken into account in the Bill?

Professor Whitty: You are absolutely right: it is a completely normal part of medical and wider nursing, and other practice, but particularly medical practice, to consider issues of consent and capacity. It can be that someone says they do not want treatment that is clearly going to be lifesaving. A very well-known example is that of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who choose not to have blood products. If they are bleeding heavily, that is an issue that could lead to the end of their life. Provided they understand that and they have capacity, that has to be respected.

The alternative way—the other thing that doctors have to do—is to give people advice before they have major operations, chemotherapy or other drugs that may in themselves lead to the end of their life, but which also may lead to a benefit. Explaining to people the risks and benefits, including the fact that they may lose their life as a result of the next stage—if someone is at high anaesthetic risk, that is not a trivial risk sometimes with operations—is a very standard part of medical practice that you do from the point that you qualify. Obviously, as people get more senior, they tend to be more experienced in it—and, as with most things, if you get more experience, you generally get better at it.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Q Professor Whitty, the definition of “terminal illness” is attracting some attention. Some people say it is difficult to define a terminal illness. Would it improve the Bill if we had a specified list of illnesses that would apply? Is it possible to come up with a list of illnesses that are terminal that would qualify under the legislation?

Professor Whitty: If I am honest, I think it would be extremely difficult. If I may, I will explain why, because it is a really important question. Let us take cancer. For the great majority of people with the majority of cancers that are diagnosed tomorrow, the doctor who is seeing them will say, in all confidence, “You have cancer and I expect you to be alive not just next Christmas, but for many years to come.” The fact that they have cancer is not in itself a demonstration that they are going to die. In fact, the majority will not. Almost 80% of people with breast cancer diagnosed tomorrow will still be alive 10 years later, for example.

Equally, there are people who may not have a single disease that is going to lead to the path to death, but they have multiple diseases interacting, so they are highly frail; it is therefore not the one disease that is the cause, but the constellation that is clearly leading them on a path inexorably to a death at some point in the foreseeable future. Exact timings are tricky—we might want to come back to that. I therefore think it is quite difficult to specify that certain diseases are going to cause death and others are not, because in both directions that could be misleading.

[Sarah Olney]

Q Can you talk a little bit more about whether you perceive any difficulties in having a definition of terminal illness in the Act? How do you think the medical profession will interpret that?

Professor Whitty: At the extremes —most people are at the extremes—it is very clear what is going to happen. For most people, you can say with confidence, barring some extraordinary accident like being hit by a car on the way out, “You’ll be fine in a year, even though you have heart disease, cancer or whatever.” At the other extreme, there are people who are clearly dying and will die in the next two or three days, and virtually nothing will change that reality.

What we are talking about in the Bill, of course, is a point between those stages, but people will definitely reach a point where there will be an inexorable and, importantly for the Bill, unreversible slide towards a point of death. People can make a reasonable central view, if they are experienced in a particular disease, about when the death is likely to happen, accepting that there is a spread around that. I am sure that the general public and Members of Parliament fully accept that this is not a precise science. This is a central view, and there is a big academic literature around this. Some people will die significantly earlier than they are predicted to; a small number will die very significantly later; and some people will certainly die a bit later or to some degree later. The central view is usually reasonably accurate—that someone is now on a pathway from which there is not going to be a return.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for coming to give evidence this morning, gentlemen. I would like to pick up on coercion and capacity, because they are two really important points in the Bill. I would like to know a little more about the work that doctors and nurses do to check for coercion and assess capacity when patients are making really important decisions and choices at the end of life, but maybe in other contexts as well. The Bill refers to the Mental Capacity Act. That Act is a big piece of legislation, but I am conscious that there is only a short reference to it in the Bill. Is there anything we could add to the Bill that would improve the robustness of the reference to mental capacity? What does it look like now, and is there anything we could add?

Professor Whitty: Duncan, why don’t you take the first bit and I will take the second?

Duncan Burton: In terms of looking for signs of coercion, all of our nursing and clinical staff have safeguarding training, which already looks at things like whether people are under financial coercion or other forms of abuse. That training is already in place and it is extensive across the NHS and social care. If the Bill is passed, we will need to look at how we strengthen that training in relation to spotting the potential signs of coercion in this space as well. Given that that mechanism is already in place, I think that would be an extension, so it is important that we factor that in. I am also mindful, given the scale of colleagues we have working across health and care, that the time between the Bill being passed and its implementation is sufficient that we enable everybody to receive that additional training, if it is required.

Professor Whitty: In terms of strengthening the Bill, as a practitioner, I was relieved that the decision was for the Bill—if it stays this way—to stick with the Mental Capacity Act, and that was for two reasons. First, that Act is used up and down the country by doctors and nurses every day; they know it and they understand it. Although, as you say, it is a large piece of legislation, it is one that people have worked through in practice multiple times. If you ask six or seven doctors, “Does this person have capacity?”, in almost all cases you will get six or seven identical answers, because people are used to using it.

It additionally 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. Within the legislation, it is very important that there are some situations where you will need to call for additional assistance. For example, if someone has a co-existing mental health condition, you will probably want to ask a psychiatrist additionally whether that condition is interfering with the decision taken to the point that someone loses capacity for this very important decision. The level of capacity has to be reasonably high.

My own view is that starting this way is the sensible thing to do. That does not mean there could not be arguments for some additional points, but I cannot immediately—again, as a jobbing doctor—see ones where I think, “This is going to make a big difference.” The fact is that this is founded on a very established bit of well-used and well-recognised legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

Q In some legal medical situations, you need to be five years post training before you can have a view. Is that something you would have in both of these practitioners, or is that not necessary?

Dr Green: We did not take a view on that. We thought that training and experience was more important.

[Sarah Olney]

Q Leading on from Dr Opher’s question about the “must refer” clause, you and Professor Whitty both stress the importance of the relationship between the doctor and the patient, yet there may be doctors who feel very strongly against mentioning assisted dying. Given the existence of clause 4(5) and the “must refer”, do you think there is a danger that there might be doctors who would be reluctant to provide a prognosis of six months or less if they thought that that would make the patient eligible for assisted dying, and that simply was not something they could support?

Dr Green: That is why it is important that doctors should be able to opt out at any stage of this. There are doctors who would find it difficult to do that, and it is important that their position is respected.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q On the point about referral, what happens in the case of abortion? That is one of the closest parallels we can get. If we have a doctor who is not comfortable having that conversation, presumably they cannot just leave that person with nowhere to go.

Dr Green: What would happen is that the doctor would provide the patient—through their receptionist, through leaflets or through a telephone number—with somewhere they could get the information. You cannot just abandon a patient. They have to be sure that the patient has the ability to do what the patient wants to do.

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

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

No. Order. We have two and a half minutes to go. One other hon. Member wants to ask a question. I want them to come in.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Q Thank you, Mr Dowd. I have a quick question for Dr Cox. Earlier on, in the context of multidisciplinary teams, you mentioned how important the family of the patient is. There is currently no role in the Bill, as it is currently drafted, for the next of kin or for any family member. Do you think that is a mistake? Is that something we should look to amend?

Dr Cox: I think it is a choice for the patient. It is always a choice for the patient who they want to involve from their social circle, whether that is family or friends. However, I think that if the patient wants the family involved, then they absolutely should be, and they should be part of those conversations and discussions.

[The Chair]

One last question, very quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Unless there are any more pressing questions—

[Sarah Olney]

indicated assent.

[The Chair]

We have one and a half minutes, so it will be a 10-second question and a 20-second answer; unless you can do that, I am going to call it to a close.

[Sarah Olney]

indicated dissent.

[Dr Opher]

Q Sir Nicholas, I have great sympathy with your position, but how would you frame this law so that it would cover yourself?

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: I would frame the law to define terminal illness in the way that it is defined here in clause 2(1)(a), but where the “person’s death in consequence” is referred to, I would delete clause 2(1)(b) and substitute “suffering intolerably”.

[The Chair]

Thank you. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee; thank you for your forbearance.

[Sarah Olney]

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I had my hand up at the beginning. I was really keen to ask a question in this session because it is pertinent to an amendment that I have tabled. Could you advise how best I can have the opportunity to ask my question?

[The Chair]

I am more than happy to speak to you afterwards. We have had lots of questions today and I tried to get people in as much as possible, but there has to be an element of self-discipline from the people asking the questions and interrupting. I am happy to facilitate if I possibly can, but I am afraid that there is also a responsibility on Members to look to other Members’ needs.

Examination of Witnesses

Dr Ryan Spielvogel and Dr Jessica Kaan gave evidence.

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

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Dr Griffiths, do you want to add to that?

Dr Griffiths: This issue highlights a fundamental flaw with the Bill, which is the nonsensical division between a terminal illness and what constitutes being a disabled person. Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 states that a disabled person is somebody who has a “physical or mental impairment” and the impairment

“has a substantial and long-term adverse effect”

on their

“ability to carry out…day-to-day activities.”

If you have a terminal illness, it is likely that you will be defined within the terms of what is outlined in section 6, so it is a fundamental flaw, because disabled people will be incorporated within this.

The issue also highlights this arbitrary nonsense about a six-month perspective. What constitutes six months left to live, particularly if you are engaging with technological devices, medical assistance and so on? For example, I have a progressive condition that continuously makes me weaker and has respiratory complications and so on. If I remove the ventilator that I use at night, if I remove my other medical devices and if I stop my engagement with therapeutic services, does that constitute me having a terminal illness, because my rapid acceleration towards death becomes more evident?

These concerns highlight fundamental flaws, but they also play into what a key issue: the campaigning that will continue after the Bill, if it is to succeed. You will get people who will say, “Why not five months, or seven? Why not other conditions that are not being highlighted in our current discourses?”

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Q Dr Griffiths, do you think it is possible that disabled people are likely to be or potentially more at risk of being coerced or otherwise persuaded to seek assisted dying as a result of the Bill?

Dr Griffiths: I think so—I think the coercion principles outlined in the Bill are incredibly weak in terms of the scrutinising and the process of how you judge whether coercion has taken place. We know that coercion is a complex issue, but put that against the context of disabled people’s lives; we are talking about disabled people who are struggling day to day to access sufficient support and to live in participatory, accessible societies. The feeling, then, of societal coercion—the feeling that this is a tolerable idea—highlights my concerns about coercion.

It also plays into the issue of support and assistance to understand what your rights are, not just in terms of what we are talking about here but broader disabled people’s rights. There is a lack of advocacy services available to disabled people, and there is a lack of support for disabled people to have accessible information about their rights. If you feel that assisted dying is your only choice—as opposed to accessing support or calling out discriminatory practices in, say, access to social care and healthcare—that highlights, again, situations where coercion will manifest. The infrastructure to support people either to respond to coercion, or to understand that they do not have to be in that position in the first place, is non-existent.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Q One of the things that we have heard from other countries that have assisted dying is that this is one of the strongest and most robust laws. I wonder whether Professor Shakespeare has any more views on how we could make the Bill even tighter, and provide support and further peace of mind to people who might be worried about it?

Professor Shakespeare: When I read the Bill, I thought that it did have many safeguards. It has, for example, five opportunities for a conversation with doctors or other supporters. That is a good safeguard. I think it makes a criminal offence of dishonesty, coercion or pressure, so that would scare off people. Miro is quite right—there are people who might put influence on somebody, but I hope that they would be covered under clause 26 as having committed an offence. That would scare people who may have a particular view against assisted dying.

How can we make it stronger? We could have more of an advocate for the person who is requesting assisted dying—somebody who will support them, within the law, to make that decision or to think about their decision. We are trying to make sure that everybody who is thinking that this is for them has the opportunity to talk about it and to think about it. The time and the conversations are all about that, but maybe an advocate also would be the person who is requesting this step, who is not a beneficiary in any way of that death, and they could be a neutral party to give advice. I am not sure. However, there is a lot here. There are five conversations. I am not surprised that people thought it was strong. I think it is a strong Bill.

There is scope for doctors and other medical practitioners to act on their conscience and to withdraw from this. Miro made a useful point, which is that we do not want any disabled person frightened of their doctor or worried that their doctor, who has been supporting somebody else to die, might do that with them. In conversation, Marie, we have talked about an assisted dying service as being a part of the NHS, but I wonder whether it might be specifically around this. I think that it is worth considering whether the average doctor is the person to whom a person should take a concern or a wish to die.

So this is about advocacy and maybe having a specific service for people who want to go down that route. However, I think it is a strong Bill as it stands.

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

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Kim Leadbeater]

Thank you so much.

Pat Malone: My experience with my father was entirely different. My daughter, who was seven at the time, reminded me recently, when I was putting my thoughts together for this, that in his last weeks she had visited him, and I had taken her into a side room and told her not to expect to see the grandpa that she knew, because he was very, very ill and he did not look anything like she would expect. She said she was very thankful that I did that, because she was stunned and shocked when she saw him. He was like a 1,000-year-old corpse, he was moving, and his eyes were yellow, and that is how she remembers him—she does not remember any of the good times. My sister, who lived close by, was with him most of the time, and she just sat by his bed and prayed for his heart to stop.

We were all shell-shocked when he did finally die. As I say, that informed the decisions that were made about suicide by my sister and brother. Had he been a farm animal, we would have been prosecuted for causing unnecessary suffering, but he was a man so he was not entitled to that sort of consideration. I remember him in that horrible ward breathing his last. The only time he moved in the last days was to cough up blood. For a man who had asked to be relieved of that burden, who had asked for an act of mercy, a week before, and it had been denied him—I cannot understand how anybody would deny a dying man a deliverance.

When my brother died, he and my sister-in-law had been together since they were 11 years old. He was only 53, so they had already known each other for 40 years. She had shared his suffering while he was being driven around the country looking for diagnoses and, ultimately, looking for doctors who would help him commit suicide. His weight had gone from 18 stone to 8 stone, and he was bright yellow as well. He was suffering all the time and she was suffering with him. She was relieved as well as grieving when he actually died—and then the police were at the door. The investigation went on until his inquest eight months later. The police were as helpful and sensitive as they could possibly be. Vicky got the impression that they wanted her to give the wrong answer—when they said, “Did you know what he was going to do?” she said, “Yes, I did”; to “Could you have stopped him?” she said, “Yes, he was weak as a kitten”; and to “Could you have resuscitated him?” she said “Yes,” because she had had some nursing training, and so on—and with every answer they just collapsed a little bit more.

Ultimately, at the inquest there was an anomaly in his suicide note. It was written in two different colours of ink, and the police investigated whether it could have been written at different times, possibly by different people. Giving evidence at his inquest, the police said that they thought his pen had run out—there was a squiggle at the top where it changed from black to blue—and they said that they were not proceeding with any idea that there had been positive involvement in his suicide.

I have a note of the transcript of what the coroner said, which reads: “I don’t want to make any more of this than I absolutely have to. I simply record therefore that Michael Malone took his own life. He did so quite deliberately and having made appropriate preparations, and so it’s not a case of my saying that he did so while the balance of his mind was disturbed, because it clearly was not. It was a decision that he took and I have every sympathy with that decision in so far as a coroner is allowed to say that.”

The police were very sympathetic. The coroner was very sympathetic. Danny Kruger is very sympathetic. But sympathy only goes so far, and I am glad that this Committee is now looking at exactly the people who matter first in this issue, who cannot be here to talk for themselves.

Liz Reed: In answer to the first point, about anything we would change or do differently, I think actually my brother’s case was dealt with really well and there were checks and balances along the whole way: “Does he meet the eligibility criteria?”—obviously—“but also, does he want to?” His wife was involved in the process with him, and he was checked constantly. A doctor administered for him, and he had met him already. He knew him and had a rapport with him. He had a few jokes with him at the end. So from that perspective, I do not think so. It is slightly different in Australia, in that it does not have to have a High Court judge, so the process feels a bit more streamlined than it is here, and maybe the access would be slightly different because of that.

In terms of the grief, I think anyone that knows someone who has been through a terminal illness knows that there is a level of anticipatory grief that comes with that—the waking up every morning thinking, “Has it been tonight? What happens next? What’s today?” Because when someone is in the final stages of their life, which my brother was, there is always something every day: “Oh, he’s got to have fluid drained from his heart today,” or, “Oh, this has happened.” There is always something, so that grief starts coming on before the person has even died.

The day my brother died we sat outside in the courtyard and had a glass of champagne. He chose a Bob Dylan song that he wanted to die to. It was extremely peaceful. It was seconds. And he got to say all the things, have all the conversations, speak to our parents—that sort of real American “closure”. That is what he got, and we were not sitting around thinking, “I wish I’d said this. I missed it,” or, “I was off doing something with the kids.” We were all there: my mum, my dad, me, his wife. We sat there and held his hand—and what a gift.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Q Thank you all for coming today and for sharing these really personal recollections. I have one question, but to both Liz and Julie, if that is okay. According to the notes that I have here—apologies if I have got this wrong—in both your brother’s situation and your husband’s situation, it was administered by the doctor. The Bill proposes that the person who has made the choice about ending their life should self-administer a solution. I am really sorry if this causes you any distress, but, on reflection, do you think that a self-administration regime would have made a difference?

Liz Reed: I do not think so, no. I do not think it would have changed his mind. I am someone who is real squeamish, so I probably would not want to, because of how I feel about all that kind of stuff, but it would not have changed anything for him—no, absolutely not. But I think there is a comfort in having a doctor there administering that, “This is going to go as it should,” and there is a calm that comes with that.

Julie Thienpont: Guy being intensely private, as I mentioned before, he would have preferred less people around him at the time. There were two nurses, the family doctor and the administering doctor. They prepared the scene and put the drips in—they had to put one in each arm—and they had to be there in order to witness the whole thing. He would have preferred to have been able to do it himself, but I do not think the fact that it was administered by somebody else impacted in a negative way for him.

[The Chair]

Pat, I think you wanted to say something.

Pat Malone: Yes. My sister died under the Swiss method, which meant self-administering a cup. She had motor neurone disease, and she was slowly losing the use of her limbs. She went earlier than she needed to because she wanted to be sure that she would be able to swallow and lift her arm. She could probably have put it off for some months—an indeterminate period—but she died before she needed to in order to be sure that she could self-administer.

[Sarah Olney]

Q The Chair has given me permission to ask a very quick follow-up, Pat, since you mentioned that. I am really sorry to ask this, but do you think that if it had been administered by a doctor, she would have chosen to live for a little longer?

Pat Malone: I cannot speak for her, but there were many, many problems. Bizarrely, the last package of documents that she sent to Dignitas got caught up in the postal strike, and they were all irreplaceable original documents. I do not know if you remember, but around that time—this was the winter of 2022-23—there was a postal strike, and it particularly affected international mail. For nine weeks, the documents were held up in a sorting office, and they could not find them. She was getting more and more concerned, because her horror was that she would miss that deadline. In actual fact, Dignitas agreed that in the final analysis she could hand carry the last of the documents she needed when she came to Switzerland, and she was still able, but her horror when she thought she was going to miss the bus was quite palpable. Yes, if a doctor had been able to do it, she might well have chosen that option.

[Sarah Olney]

Thank you for answering that.

[Dr Opher]

Q I have been fascinated by this discussion, so thank you all. It strikes me that we have spent a number of days looking at the other end of this, if you like—coercion and capacity and that sort of thing—but I am concerned that we had a judge with Parkinson’s who would not be allowed through this, like your sister with MND. I just think we should consider as a Committee whether we need to make any amendments on these things, and also on self-administration. I wondered whether you thought we should widen the Act. I presume you have read some of it, at least.

Pat Malone: As I mentioned to Mr Kruger, I am loath to meddle in any way with the Bill. I think that as it is the Bill is the best we can do at this time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

Q To be clear, I am here as a Government Minister on this Committee, and the Government are entirely neutral on the Bill, so we do not take a position on the substance of the issues you have raised. Clearly, the draft Bill is intended to apply in both England and Wales, as you say, and your note is extremely helpful in highlighting some of those issues that will need to be worked out. As a Government, we will work closely with the Welsh Government to assess the legalities and practicalities of any potential changes to the law.

You have highlighted in particular the distinctions between health law, which is a devolved matter, and the law on suicide, which currently is not devolved. On the first page of your written evidence, you draw out clauses 32, 31, 33 and 34 in particular as issues that we should focus on in ironing out those legalities. Is there anything else you want to add to that that you think that we as a Government should focus on in our work consulting with the Senedd?

Professor Lewis: I think it is important that both Governments understand how the implementation of what will be a pretty radical change in the law will happen on the ground within the health service and among those who are responsible for delivering social services. I am thinking of issues such as adult safeguarding, which in Wales has its own specific law and is slightly different from the arrangements in England. There are those kinds of nuances between the two territories, and I think it would be prudent to focus on them.

I also think it is wise to bear in mind that Wales has certain statutory bodies whose interests might extend to the Bill. For example, there is the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales, in particular; there is the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales as well. I think it is important that there is some forum, some scope, for those people also to be involved in how this is shaped.

[Sarah Olney]

Q Dr Price, I am really glad that we are able to have the Royal College of Psychiatrists in front of us today; thank you for making the time. I want to ask you about paragraph 11 of your written evidence, which states that it is the royal college’s view that the Mental Capacity Act

“is not sufficient for the purposes of this Bill.”

Could you expand a little on that and, if you feel able, make some recommendations as to what you think could be sufficient?

Dr Price: Thank you. In answering this, I will also refer back to Professor Gareth Owen’s oral submission, thinking about the purpose that the Mental Capacity Act was drawn up for and the fact that decisions about the ending of life were not one of the originally designed functions of it. We would need to think carefully about how that would then translate into a decision that was specifically about the capacity to end one’s life.

We also need to think about how that would work in practice. When we are thinking about capacity assessments, it is usually related to a treatment or a choice about a treatment or about somebody’s life—for example, changing residence. Psychiatrists and doctors and actually lots of professionals are very used to those sorts of decisions and have gathered a lot of knowledge, expertise and experience around it. This particular decision is something that in this country we do not have knowledge, expertise and experience in, and we therefore need to think about how that would look in practice.

As for advice to the Committee about what that might look like, I think that we need to gather what evidence we have—it is actually very thin—from other jurisdictions that think about capacity as part of this process. I am thinking about my PhD: I visited Oregon and talked to practitioners who were directly involved in these sorts of assessments. They described the process, but they are not using the Mental Capacity Act as their framework. They described a very interpersonal process, which relied on a relationship with the patient, and the better a patient was known, the more a gut feeling-type assessment was used. We need to think here about whether that would be a sufficient conversation to have.

One of the things that I have thought quite a lot about is how we can really understand the workings of a mental capacity assessment, and one of the best ways we can do that is to see who is not permitted to access assisted suicide because of a lack of capacity and what that assessment showed. We do not have data because the assessments for people who were not permitted to do it are not published; we cannot read them, so if this becomes legislation, one of the suggestions that I would have—it is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists—is to, with patients’ consent, record capacity assessments to see whether they meet the standard that is necessary. I think it is important to set out the standard necessary and the components needed to be confident about a mental capacity assessment. That will help with standards, but will also help with training, because this is new territory for psychiatry, for medicine, and to be able to think about consistency and reliability, training needs to actually see a transparency in capacity assessments.

[Dr Tidball]

Q This is a question for Dan Scorer. I have worked with a learning disability charity, My Life My Choice. I have done a lot of work with that charity on self-advocacy in the context of healthcare, so I am really keen to hear from you. We know there are excellent initiatives that focus on supporting people with learning disabilities to engage with advanced care planning, so that their preferences at the end of life can be respected. I just wondered whether you could share some lessons learned, particularly in relation to giving people with learning disabilities a voice and an opportunity to talk about what matters to them at the end of life, and say, as part of that, what we could incorporate into the regulations that are being developed as part of the Bill.

Dan Scorer: There are two key concerns I will touch on. One was covered just at the end of the last session, with the question about preliminary discussions, and that is certainly a key area that we have concern about, about how that initial conversation is initiated and structured. For us, that really leads into a conversation around rights to advocacy. It would be extremely concerning if people with a learning disability who were terminally ill were not fully prepared and supported for that discussion.

For us, this links into the experiences that we had during the pandemic, which were touched on in yesterday’s evidence session by Dr Griffiths and others. We had people with a learning disability who were being consulted by medical professionals about “do not resuscitate” or “do not treat” decisions, and they were not being properly prepared for or supported in those discussions. Indeed, in one of our own care services, we had someone we support who was called up by a GP and asked whether she would want the kiss of life. The GP was trying to explain it to her excessively and she said, “No, of course not. I would not want to be kissed by someone I do not know.” Potentially, a “do not attempt CPR” notice was put in place. That example just shows the importance of preparing and supporting people for such discussions, so we want to see a right to advocacy included within the Bill to support people considering their end-of-life options.

Also, building on the previous question about the adequacy of the Mental Capacity Act, there is a question about the adequacy of training, awareness and compliance with that Act now. That is a huge issue that has been addressed, for example, through the Oliver McGowan mandatory training on learning disability and autism, which is rolling out across the NHS and social care services at the moment. However, in addition to the MCA, we also need to make sure that clinicians fully understand the Equality Act and the NHS accessible information standard about rights to information and support for disabled patients.

On clause 5, on training, we want to see much more specificity about the level of training that clinicians would have around the Mental Capacity Act and to make sure that they are fully aware of their responsibilities to make reasonable adjustments for patients, and to support them with understanding their choices around end-of-life care, which could include assisted dying.

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

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am on the Committee as a Member of Parliament and I vote as such. When I speak on the Committee, I speak as a Government Minister in order to provide factual and technical explanations. As the Bill is a matter of conscience, I will be voting with my conscience on all the amendments as they come forward.

The amendments that we are now debating have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley in consultation with the Government. They relate to the location of the person seeking assistance under the Bill and are designed to ensure that the service can only be accessed by an individual present in England and Wales, with a view to preventing medical tourism.

I will take the amendments in turn. Amendments 178 and 193 would ensure that only a terminally ill person in England or Wales may be provided with assistance in accordance with the Bill. Further to that, a requirement is placed on the co-ordinating doctor to ascertain whether, in their opinion, the person who made the first declaration is in England and Wales as part of their first assessment. Amendment 179 would limit the assistance that may be provided in accordance with the Bill to assistance in England or Wales only. Amendment 180 would require the steps taken under clauses 5, 7, 8 and 13 that relate to both declarations and both doctors’ assessments to be taken by persons in England or Wales.

Amendment 182 would limit the provision of clause 4(3), where a person indicates to a registered medical practitioner their wish to seek assistance to end their own life, to cases where the person is physically present in England or Wales. It would prevent people who are outside of England or Wales from accessing assistance in accordance with the Act—for example, by online consultations from abroad.

As I said earlier, the Government will continue to remain neutral on the substantive policy questions relevant to how the law in this area could be changed. That is, as I have made clear, a matter for the Committee and for Parliament as a whole. However, I hope that these observations are helpful to Members in considering the Bill and the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.

Amendment 178 agreed to.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out “capacity” and insert “ability”.

This replaces the concept of capacity based on the Mental Capacity Act and replaces it with a new concept of ability which is defined in NC1.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 36, in clause 7, page 4, line 7, leave out “capacity” and insert “the ability”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.

Amendment 37, in clause 8, page 4, line 34, leave out “capacity” and insert “the ability”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.

Amendment 38, in clause 9, page 6, line 27, leave out “capacity” and insert “ability”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.

Amendment 202, in clause 9, page 6, line 31, leave out “capability” and insert “capacity”.

This amendment corrects a typographical error.

Amendment 39, in clause 9, page 6, line 31, leave out “capability” and insert “ability”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.

Amendment 40, in clause 12, page 8, line 2, leave out “capacity” and insert “the ability”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.

Amendment 41, in clause 13, page 9, line 31, leave out “capacity” and insert “ability”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.

Amendment 42, in clause 18, page 12, line 23, leave out “capacity” and insert “the ability”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.

Amendment 43, in clause 30, page 18, line 16, leave out “capacity” and insert “the ability”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.

Amendment 44, in clause 40, page 23, line 26, leave out from “capacity” and insert “ability”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.

New clause 1—Ability to make decision—

“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 in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State under affirmative resolution.”

This new clause defines the concept of ability which is intended to replace the concept of capacity. This new clause is intended to replace clause 3.

Amendment 45, to schedule 2, page 26, line 36, leave out “capacity” and insert “the ability to make a decision”.

Amendment 46, to schedule 3, page 28, line 1, leave out “capacity” and insert “the ability to make a decision”.

Amendment 47, to schedule 5, page 30, line 14, leave out “capacity” and insert “the ability to make a decision”.

[Sarah Olney]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Spen Valley for her opening remarks. I am grateful to be called so early in proceedings, because I believe this is one of the really important issues before us. It is about whether or not somebody

“has the capacity to make a decision to end their own life”

as is stated in clause 1(1)(a). I believe that the word “capacity” in this context is potentially difficult to define. I note that in clause 3, all reference to mental capacity is assumed to refer to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but I do not believe that that is sufficient for the purposes of the Bill. We heard plenty of voices to support my point of view during the oral evidence, so I want to reflect on that.

I think there are four separate concerns about using the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to judge capacity. The Royal College of Psychiatrists submitted its original written evidence in January, which we have all had sight of, and it said:

“Under the Bill as introduced, a person with a co-occurring mental disorder that is impacting their wish to end their own life would not necessarily be deemed ineligible; only those whose mental disorder was deemed to impair their capacity to make a decision to end their own life would be excluded.”

That means that an individual could have a terminal illness and also separately have a mental illness, such as depression; that would affect their ability to make a decision as to whether that terminal illness was sufficient for them to ask for assistance with dying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Francis]

The Mental Capacity Act is written to enable people to carry out day-to-day scenarios, such as buying a coffee or doing their banking, so that they are not challenged in every transaction in their life. It is therefore a very low bar to be deemed to have capacity. Does the hon. Member believe that it was written for this kind of scenario?

[Sarah Olney]

That is an absolutely relevant point. The Mental Capacity Act was not drafted in anticipation of it ever being used for this kind of scenario. Therefore, it is really incumbent upon us to weigh very carefully whether the Mental Capacity Act is the right way of assessing people’s ability to make this decision. As I was saying, it includes the presumption of capacity, and for a decision to end one’s life, an assumption of capacity to make that decision is a low bar, and we have lots of evidence.

[Danny Kruger]

I am interested in that point about the Mental Capacity Act not having been written with the Bill in mind. That is absolutely true for the minds of its framers and the Parliament that passed it at the time. It is worth noting, however, that we can see from the accounts and records of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, which became Dignity in Dying a few years later, that it was lobbying at the time covertly—or behind the scenes—for the Mental Capacity Act to be framed in exactly that way. The Voluntary Euthanasia Society was very conscious that, when the time came to pass the law for assisted suicide, it would be very helpful to have a capacity Act on the statute book that had this very low bar. The society was delighted when the Act was passed in the way that it was, and it boasted at the time of the influence it had had on the Act.

[Sarah Olney]

That is a very interesting intervention. I cannot comment on that because I have no knowledge of how the Mental Capacity Act was drafted or the evidence that was taken.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I do believe that the Mental Capacity Act enables people to make very serious decisions, such as stopping cancer treatment, so I would absolutely dispute the hon. Lady’s interpretation of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the exact point: it allows people to make a decision about whether or not they want to continue treatment; it has not been used in this way before, and it was not intended to be used for that purpose. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point: he was trying to say that to stop treatment is akin to making a proactive decision to end one’s life, but I would argue that it is not, and that is why the Mental Capacity Act is unsuitable for this purpose.

It was interesting to reflect on the oral and written evidence we received on this issue. Professor Sir Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, stated in his oral evidence:

“Issues…around mental capacity…are dealt with every day…every doctor and nurse above a certain level of seniority should be able to do that normally. It may require some slight adjustment.”

He acknowledged that

“the more serious the decision, the greater the level of capacity that someone needs to have.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 30, Q13.]

However, the Royal College of Psychiatrists said that

“an assessment of a person’s mental capacity to decide to end their own life is an entirely different and more complex determination requiring a higher level of understanding.”

[Sean Woodcock]

During the oral evidence, we heard from three sets of psychiatrists who all cast doubt on the suitability of the Mental Capacity Act for decisions such as assisted dying. Is the hon. Lady’ s amendment an attempt to alleviate those doubts and put that right in the Bill?

[Sarah Olney]

Yes, that is exactly what I am aiming to do. The hon. Member makes an excellent point. There is a wide variety of views on this, but in actual fact, much as I do not wish to question Professor Sir Chris Whitty, and I acknowledge his seniority as the chief medical officer, he was very much the outlier on this. Everybody else who gave evidence on the sufficiency of the Mental Capacity Act to determine someone’s capability to make this decision for themselves cast doubt on the idea that the Mental Capacity Act was the right way of doing it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is not quite accurate. I think we did have other witnesses who absolutely said that they had confidence in the Mental Capacity Act, and I will speak about them in this debate.

[Sarah Olney]

I look forward to the hon. Lady’s further comments, but as I said, the psychiatrists were very clear that they did not believe that this was a sufficient safeguard, and we should acknowledge that.

I was unable to put my question to Alex Ruck Keene KC during the oral evidence session, but he kindly agreed to give further evidence in writing in response to a letter I sent to him later that day. That exchange of letters has been published as written evidence. It was his position that, in actual fact, Professor Sir Chris Whitty misinterpreted the Mental Capacity Act when he gave evidence. There is no such requirement in the Mental Capacity Act that states that the more serious the decision, the greater the level of capacity that someone needs to have. Mr Ruck Keene’s view is that that was the common law prior to the Mental Capacity Act coming into force, whereas in actual fact the Mental Capacity Act does not require that the more serious the decision, the more capacity someone needs to be judged to have.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I am sympathetic to the problem the hon. Lady has identified of people who have a terminal illness as well as other mental health conditions. Instead of rewriting the Mental Capacity Act for this new context, would it not be better to secure safeguards through clause 9, through which further assessments are potentially going to be mandated, if the amendment from the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) is agreed to, for those cases where there is doubt as to capacity? That would add a further safeguard rather than rewriting the established Mental Capacity Act and case law.

[Sarah Olney]

I have no intention of rewriting the Mental Capacity Act. It should stand exactly as it is and be used for the purpose for which it is intended. That is not the intention behind my amendment, which merely proposes that we should assess people’s ability to make the decision and not just their capacity. Many of those who provided evidence demonstrated that merely testing somebody’s capacity to make a decision is insufficient in this case.

[Dr Opher]

We also heard evidence that if we make this more complicated and introduce more terms into the Bill, then there will be less safeguarding for patients. That is why we are all here: we are trying to make this Bill safe for patients seeking assisted dying. Changing it from the Mental Capacity Act will make it less safe.

[Sarah Olney]

I heard Sir Chris Whitty in particular say that it would be preferable to have a more straightforward Bill that did not have too many bureaucratic hurdles for people to overcome. That was why he was keen for the Mental Capacity Act to be retained. However, I tabled the amendment precisely because, when people are thinking about whether assisted dying is an appropriate decision for them, I do not think that it is safe for them to be judged merely on the basis of their capacity. It is by no means my intention to increase bureaucracy; I am merely proposing that the Act is not sufficient in this case.

[Naz Shah]

Three psychiatrists gave evidence to the Committee in person: Professor Allan House, Dr Annabel Price, of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and Professor Gareth Owen. All expressed doubts about the use of the Mental Capacity Act to assess whether a person was in a fit state of mind to undertake assisted dying. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should place great weight on the opinion of psychiatrists when assessing whether the Act should be used to assess applicants for assisted dying? It is a horse before the cart scenario, because the Act was not made for this context; when it was passed, we were not talking about the ability to choose to die.

[Sarah Olney]

I agree exactly with the hon. Lady’s point. The Act was not designed for this purpose, and it is essential that we carefully scrutinise whether it should be used in this way.

[Rebecca Paul]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I welcome the hon. Member’s attempt to improve safeguarding in the Bill, which I agree is currently not at the right level. Does she agree that the Mental Capacity Act assumes in the first instance that, if there is no evidence to the contrary, a person has capacity, and that whether a person lacks capacity must be decided on the balance of probabilities? Unwise decision making does not indicate a lack of capacity, and supported decision making is considered to be acceptable. We need all to be clear that that is what the Act says.

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. That would be another weakness of the Mental Capacity Act being used in this context: if someone is judged to have capacity, they are free to make an unwise decision, yet there is nothing in the Bill to provide a safeguard against people who might have capacity and make an unwise decision because their thinking has been obscured by mental illness, depression or something else.

[Jake Richards]

I have a few questions for the hon. Member. Who does she propose will decide whether a decision by someone who has capacity is wise or unwise? Does she also propose changing the law around patients’ refusing life-saving treatment? Should that be handled under the Mental Capacity Act, as it is at the moment?

[Sarah Olney]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention, but I am not proposing to change any legislation other than the Bill before us. All the other legislation to which he refers should remain precisely as it is, and for the purpose for which it was intended. He asks who is to say whether someone is making a wise or unwise decision; that is the job of the people who are instructed to provide assessments under the Mental Capacity Act. As was clear from my response to the hon. Member for Reigate, if someone has been assessed as having capacity, there must not be any further interference in their decision-making process, even if there are distinct concerns that that person may be deciding to end their life not purely because of their terminal illness but because they are suffering from depression. There is no other mechanism in the Bill to enable that further safeguard.

[Dr Opher]

I use the Mental Capacity Act almost every week in my work. As Chris Whitty said, in the majority of cases, whether someone has capacity is clear and indisputable. For a narrow proportion of people, it is more difficult to decide. The Bill takes account of that by using a panel to decide on those difficult cases of capacity. I would insist that most cases are very straightforward.

[Sarah Olney]

I have to ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify that. When he says he uses a panel, is he referring to the new amendment that has been proposed? I have not seen it yet and cannot comment on it, and have no idea if it will be adopted.

[Dr Opher]

If we are not sure about capacity, we must refer to psychiatry, so that a specialist organisation can make a more detailed assessment. However, most people do not fit into that category. Most people clearly have not got capacity or have got capacity, so this is a very narrow cohort.

[Sarah Olney]

If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman’s intervention precisely illustrates what other hon. Members were raising as points of order earlier. How can we properly scrutinise the legislation when new amendments are being tabled at the last minute that potentially change the entire nature of the legislation that we are attempting to scrutinise? It is very difficult then to speak about the amendments that have already been tabled.

[Danny Kruger]

Further to that point, the hon. Lady responded to the hon. Member for Stroud, who suggested that a doctor must refer to a psychiatrist in the event of concern over capacity. There is no such obligation in the Bill. There is the opportunity to do so—the second doctor may do so, if they choose—but there is no such obligation. That is something that we could definitely improve.

The hon. Member for Stroud, who is a GP, says that it is always obvious to him when there are issues about capacity. I assume he might think the same about coercion. I wonder if the hon. Lady is aware that one in six older people are subject to abuse—elder abuse. Does she think that the hon. Member for Stroud always spots the one in six of his older patients who are subject to abuse?

[The Chair]

Order. I remind everybody to stay within the scope of what we are talking about, which is capacity.

[Sarah Olney]

On that note, I will probably not respond to the hon. Gentleman’s comments about coercion, but I will pick up on what the hon. Member for Stroud said about using the Mental Capacity Act every week. I think that probably makes him unusual among MPs, if not GPs. I personally have no experience of using the Mental Capacity Act, which is precisely what gives rise to my anxiety. We in this room need to properly understand what the Mental Capacity Act means, yet most of us do not have the experience that he has in applying it. However, we are all collectively responsible for ensuring that the legislation is framed properly. I can only go on the oral and written evidence that we have received, and I am paying serious attention to all those who have said that they do not think that the Mental Capacity Act is sufficient. I lack the direct experience that the hon. Member for Stroud has of those matters, and that is the best that I can do.

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

We are discussing the balance of autonomy against considerations such as capacity and coercion. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 has been in existence for 20 years, so it has the advantage of being familiar. Would the hon. Lady agree that if we were to bring in clinical views from different professions, such as from doctors, social workers and psychiatrists, we would have different definitions in place, which would address some of the concerns about different applications?

[Sarah Olney]

That is an extremely wise observation. I regret enormously that there was not more opportunity, before the legislation was drafted, to have those discussions between experts, advisers and others who really know what the Mental Capacity Act means and whether it is sufficient for this purpose. The best that we can do now is reflect on the evidence that we have received. In many ways, that is what I am hoping to address with my amendment: to redefine “capacity” as “ability”, to transfer the responsibility for defining how ability should be assessed under the Act to the Secretary of State for further analysis and consultation, and then for that to be laid out properly.

When assessing people’s ability to make the decision, we want to take into account their ability to understand, retain, use and weigh information, and to communicate the decision. That will still be at the heart of an assessment of whether an individual is making the decision for the right reasons. A whole range of things might affect a person’s ability to make the decision. I have mentioned many times mental disorders such as depression, which is more common in people nearing the end of their life. Delirium, which is common in people with advanced illnesses, needs to be assessed. There is the complexity of people who have a physical terminal illness alongside a mental disorder; I think particularly of people suffering from an eating disorder, which is primarily a mental health condition but clearly has physical health implications. If the mental health condition is not treated or is resistant to treatment, the physical manifestation of the eating disorder can quickly become a terminal illness. That is a really important point that we need to reflect on.

The feelings of hopelessness that may come alongside a diagnosis of terminal illness may affect a person’s ability to weigh information. Anxiety can amplify their fears of future suffering, and types and doses of medication can affect capacity. All sorts of people can suffer vulnerabilities from external factors such as the lack of realistic alternatives like palliative care services; overt or implicit coercion; personal losses including bereavement; poor housing; financial hardship; and loneliness and social isolation. Understanding and responding to those vulnerabilities is at the centre of suicide prevention, but absent from the Bill.

We have to remember that the Bill would apply to people who are said to be within months of death but may not be, to those who may die within months but otherwise have a very good quality of life, and to people whose trajectories to death vary greatly. In his written evidence, Professor Allan House states that

“careful inquiry is justified because a statement about wanting to end one’s life cannot be simply taken as the result of a straightforward rational decision to choose one type of end of life care over others. Simply checking mental capacity and asking about coercion is not adequate.”

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I understand the concerns my hon. Friend is raising about assessing mental capacity. Does she acknowledge that throughout this process mental capacity will be assessed not once but multiple times? What does she say to that?

[Sarah Olney]

I say to that what I have been saying throughout: a test of mental capacity is not sufficient for this Bill. For example, the Royal College of Psychiatrists states that the Mental Capacity Act

“is not sufficient for the purposes of this Bill. Extensive consideration needs to be given to what an assessment of mental capacity should consist of”

for decisions relating to assisted dying or assisted suicide—

“and, indeed, whether a determination through such an assessment can be reliably arrived at in this novel context.”

I believe that what the Royal College of Psychiatrists means by “novel context” is that no legislation of this type has been framed before and we do not have any precedent to guide us in terms of what an appropriate determination of capacity might be.

[Dr Opher]

I apologise to the hon. Lady for my continued interruptions, but I want to put across some important points. In our medical system, the Mental Capacity Act is currently used to test capacity in cases of withdrawing life support. Does the hon. Lady not agree that that is on the same level as assisted dying?

[Sarah Olney]

I have a suspicion that the hon. Gentleman may have made that point already in one of his many interventions. Withdrawing treatment is not the same as someone making an informed wish to have their death assisted. That is why we need to be very careful about considering whether the Mental Capacity Act is appropriate for that kind of decision. That Act is being used in a way it was not designed for. To use this definition of “capacity” is to accept the premise that this is just like any other treatment option and not qualitatively different, and fails to recognise the complexity and gravity of the decision.

The Bill also fails to consider that there may be a risk of assessor bias—that sometimes it may well be that a doctor who makes an assessment may well have their own views about the suitability of assisted dying as an option for that particular patient. They may be in favour of it, or they may be against it. If that were to sway them towards making an assessment against capacity, that could have lots of serious implications for the patient.

I have proposed amendment 34 because I think it is the best way forward at this stage, given the variety of evidence we have had and the real difficulty for us in this room of making an appropriate determination of the extent to which the Mental Capacity Act’s use may be modified for this purpose, or of coming up with something entirely new. I think the best way forward is to give the power to the Government—to the Secretary of State—to define the term “ability” in relation to this legislation at a later date.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

With respect to the hon. Member for Richmond Park, I do not support her amendments, which seek to replace the references in the Bill to the Mental Capacity Act with the concept of “ability”. First, medical practitioners already know, regularly use and well understand the Mental Capacity Act 2005. As a result, as Professor Chris Whitty said in evidence, where practitioners conduct such an assessment of an individual separately, they are usually in agreement in their decisions about the outcome in relation to that individual. That was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud.

Secondly, the term “ability”, unlike mental capacity, is not an existing concept in law that we can draw upon in the context of complex medical decision making about consent to medical treatment. I therefore do not accept that it is a low bar.

[Sarah Olney]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Tidball]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Richmond Park, who asked first.

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Lady has moved on considerably from the point that I was going to make, so I took it that she was not going to take interventions. Although I would have liked the opportunity to respond to some of her points, I have kept my counsel. Since she has now given way, I want to make something of a point of order. The hon. Lady mentioned that she thought my use of the word “ability” was ableist, and I want to put on the record that I had absolutely no intention of it being interpreted in that way. I meant no offence, and I hope that the word would not have been considered in such a light. If that caused any offence, I apologise. I hope that the general meaning of the word “ability” is well understood in this context.

[Dr Tidball]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that statement. That is not the assumption. As I will say later, the term “ableism” is very much grounded in a deficit model of disability, which assumes that somebody is not capable of doing something themselves—for instance, making important decisions—whereas the Mental Capacity Act starts from a different perspective: it presumes that the person will have the ability to do something until proven otherwise. That is why I feel that the concept of ability does not align well with what is needed in understanding and providing autonomy to people making very difficult decisions at the end of their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Tidball]

I do not have a list of the case law in front of me—I am sure it will be possible for that to be found for my hon. Friend—but it is done regularly. The Mental Capacity Act is used regularly in decisions about the withdrawal of life-support treatment. That is the case, and she is welcome to search for the case law.

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Lady talks about the four tests and parts of the Mental Capacity Act; the point I was making was that we want to retain elements of the Act, although using it in its entirety is problematic in this context. The four functional tests about whether someone is capable of making a decision absolutely should be retained—as she said, that is well tested, it works well and people understand in a court of law exactly how to apply it—but some of the other elements of the Mental Capacity Act are problematic. That is why I seek to redraft “capacity” to “ability”—I accept that that might be a problematic word, but I hope the hon. Lady will take on board my earlier comments—and that is what is important. The hon. Lady is saying we should not take out those bits of the Mental Capacity Act that are valuable and important, and I agree.

[Dr Tidball]

I am pleased to hear the hon. Lady’s agreement. As someone who has worked in this space for a long time, I say that if she does not want to have the impact in law of putting in place a concept that would be ableist and take a deficit model of disability, we need those five principles that are already embedded in the Mental Capacity Act. We also need the stringent two-stage test, the second stage of which has the four elements that I set out. Only then can we be certain that we are approaching the paradigm of this complex and important decision making as one where we understand the autonomy and best interests of groups of people we all wish to best protect.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

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

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Paul]

Not yet; I am finishing my point. It has a clear legal meaning, and we must not put the blinkers on. I would suggest to Members that if they have an issue with the word “suicide”, they remember that this will actually result in the end of someone’s life. We must not be squeamish about using correct and accurate terminology in what we describe.

The second point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire is a really good point: it is a fine line and it is really difficult. I have proposed this amendment not because I want “encouragement” specifically to be in the Bill, but because the encouragement of suicide is already a crime. I am being logical and taking what is already a criminal offence under the Suicide Act. If we do not include it in the Bill, it means that someone can commit a criminal offence against a victim, and that does not preclude the victim from being eligible for assisted dying, so I am suggesting a very logical amendment. My right hon. Friend makes a great point, but if we have an issue with the word “encouragement”, we need to take that up with the drafters of the Suicide Act, which was long before my time in 1961.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree on the value of her amendment, and the value of introducing the word “encouraged” into the Bill? Reflecting on what has been said about the “fine line” argument by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, the value of inserting this amendment is that, where it can be proven beyond doubt that someone has encouraged or actively sought to influence someone else to choose assisted death, that is a crime encoded in the law.

To the point made by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire, in discussions among families about this possibility, and where spouses are supporting each other in this decision, it will never be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that a crime of encouragement has taken place. By putting it in law, where encouragement can be proven—and it must be proven—it can be prosecuted as the criminal offence that it would be.

[Rebecca Paul]

As ever, the hon. Lady so eloquently makes her point and I completely agree. I am not a lawyer but, given that the Suicide Act made the encouragement of suicide a criminal offence back in 1961, I imagine there is quite a lot of case law that would help define where that line is drawn on encouragement, but I would refer to better qualified people than myself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The point that I would make is about an example that we talked about a lot yesterday, so I know that it resonates for many on the Committee. If someone is making a decision and a treatment is being withdrawn, or life support is being turned off, undue influence is already one of the things they consider, so when we are considering assisted death, surely, in order to be consistent, we would apply undue influence to that as well, rather than having a lower level. Why would we have a lower threshold for assisted dying compared with withdrawal of treatment?

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Members for Sunderland Central and for Penistone and Stocksbridge said of existing concepts in law, “This is how they have always been used.” It was reminiscent of the conversation we had yesterday about the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and mental capacity being an established concept in law, and “This is the way that it is always applied.” Does the hon. Lady agree that although precedent and established usage are extremely important, the Bill is quite a novel piece of legislation, and it is really incumbent on us as a Committee to ask ourselves whether we need to approach this piece of legislation in a different way, compared with other pieces of legislation that have gone before; and whether, just because something has always been used in a particular way, it is still appropriate for it to be used in that way for this legislation, as a general principle?

[Rebecca Paul]

I completely agree. If we do not incorporate undue influence, we are at a lower threshold compared with withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. That does not feel to me like the right position, but equally, this is a novel bit of legislation and we need to increase the safeguards further. Obviously, we shall be debating numerous amendments whose purpose is to raise that threshold. It is always very hard—how long is a piece of string?—to know exactly where to set a threshold. Different people have different views. My personal view is that in this Bill the threshold is too low, so we need to raise it by agreeing some of these amendments. So far, none of the amendments that have been suggested has been accepted. I really hope that during this Committee stage we will increase the safeguards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. We should not make the mistake of assuming that certain amendments will be accepted. Until there is a Division, we do not know what the Bill is going to look like. It is incredibly difficult to table amendments early on when we do not know whether other fundamental things are going to change. That is why it is important that we are really thorough and improve the safeguards as much as we can, clause by clause. I do not want to get to the end of this process without our having accepted any of the improved safeguards, only for the Bill to be turned on its head at the end when there is a Division on something fundamental. As the hon. Lady rightly says, we do not get the opportunity to come back and review the decisions we have made on the back of that.

[Sarah Olney]

Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford West, is it not a further complication that if a question is put in Committee and considered settled, it cannot be revisited on Report by any other Member outside the Committee? It may well be the case that amendments that are accepted further down the line fundamentally change the nature of the Bill, and Members who are not on this Committee will be prevented from revisiting questions in respect of the early clauses because the matter has been discussed in Committee, is considered settled and cannot be revisited on Report.

[Rebecca Paul]

As a new MP—there are many in the room today—I am still very much learning the process; we have to contend with not quite understanding how the full process works. In two years’ time, I think that I and many other new colleagues would be in a different position and would fully understand all the interactions and the subtleties of the legislative process. But it is a challenge I have, which is why, right now, I will always table the most robust amendments that I think will safeguard the most vulnerable in our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I would like to hope that that would never happen; I have a huge love of the NHS and of the people I know in it who make decisions every day, particularly given all the cuts—even more so, post covid. But there is that risk; I would like to hope that it is very small.

When it comes to mental health, the debate is similar to the one about capacity: it is the same conversation about whether something is fit for purpose. Just because something already exists does not mean that it will necessarily suit what we are doing here.

On International Women’s Day, the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), eloquently reads out a list of victims of domestic violence who have been murdered. There are two a week—I make no apologies for keeping coming back to this. Only yesterday, there was an article about women’s charities that support victims of domestic abuse citing their concerns. The amendment speaks to those concerns. How could it not be supportive?

I am not convinced by the idea that the amendment would introduce an element of jeopardy. People make decisions with their families every day. We sit and have conversations. I speak from a position of privilege—as we all do in this place, frankly. We speak from positions of privilege about how we could have these conversations with our families. But we know that inequalities exist and that some people do not have those privileges. We know that society is unequal. We know that domestic abuse, elder abuse and mental health issues exist.

In my constituency, it takes 14 months just to get a child and adolescent mental health services referral for a young person; I appreciate that we are not talking about young people. My point is that there is a real backlog in the NHS—in terms of waiting times and pain medication, for example. Palliative care is not equal, as I said yesterday. I am genuinely asking Committee members: which bit of the amendment can we not support?

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. She referred to an article she read yesterday about domestic violence in relation to the Bill; it may have been the article by Sarah Ditum in the New Statesman, which I also read yesterday. It cited two cases in which people had been on trial for murder and had pleaded mercy killing, or said that they had carried out the killing of their spouse or partner on the basis that that person was suffering greatly at the end of their life. In both cases, when the evidence was examined, the men were found guilty of murder, because it was very clear that that was what had actually happened.

The article had a profound impact on me, because it demonstrated the risk that we are running: that people will be able to use the Bill in instances of domestic violence. We have to take that very seriously and consider the implications.

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

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend comes from a mental health background, and I appreciate his expertise. We have talked a great deal about coercion—we have debated it for hours and hours—and I agree palliative care specialists, who deal with such issues as their day job, can provide that intervention and support the patient by establishing a much stronger relationship with them. I added my name to this amendment because I feel very strongly that palliative care must be a central part of the Bill if it is to provide patients a real choice at end of life. There should not be an assumption, as there is in the Bill as drafted, that assisted death is the predominant option once a person embarks on this pathway.

Let me return to the matter of minoritised voices. Dr Jamilla submitted written evidence, and spoke passionately, about the options available to people from black and minority ethnic communities. She said that they feel very much ignored. As I have said previously, palliative care is not fit for purpose because there is postcode lottery: provision depends on where a person lives, whether they have a hospice nearby, what the hospital options are and so on. There is a fear among ethnic minority communities of being pushed towards assisted death.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the purpose of this amendment is to ensure the Bill delivers for the people for whom it is intended, such as the person the hon. Member for Spen Valley spoke about? It would put in place protections for the people for whom there is a choice, and that where those choices exits, they are laid out in full and properly examined before a final decision is made.

[Naz Shah]

I completely agree. It is imperative that those options—pain options and care options, including with the family—are explored in detail. The last time that I spent time in a hospice was when my brother-in-law was dying of cancer, and I remember that, as a family, we were very much involved in those conversations. Having such expertise empowers not just the patient but the family. Losing somebody who has a life-threatening condition is a difficult time for families and loved ones. When the wraparound model of palliative care, with specialist nurses and doctors, is good, it can be amazing. I have heard plenty of stories about when it is good. Last week, I mentioned a friend of mine who lost her husband last year, and she said that the palliative care nurses and doctors could not do enough. That gives the family confidence to explore the options. In that instance, that person would have benefited from this Bill—she encouraged me to support it.

As Dr Jamilla said, some people would absolutely benefit from the Bill, and they cannot be dismissed, but how do we legislate to cover people who do not have equal access to palliative care or to healthcare? There is discrimination. The covid experience that we went through recently showed the impact of inequalities. Disabled people, people with mental health conditions, elderly people, and people from black and minority ethnic communities, say that they were DNR-ed—subject to “do not resuscitate” orders. There is already a lack of trust in services, so we need to strengthen palliative care.

There is a fear among these communities that they will be pushed towards assisted dying. A consultation with participants from Pakistani, Roma, Nigerian, black Caribbean and Indian backgrounds revealed overwhelming mistrust, which is deeply rooted in the experience of discrimination and the disproportionate impact of covid-19. As one participant put it,

“They are doing this to save money…to kill us off.”

To get confidence among communities back, we need specialists people can rely on. That is what the amendment speaks to, and I hope that the Committee will support it.

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

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Naz Shah]

I accept that the majority of those 60 cases are in such jurisdictions, but to me it does not matter whether it is the majority or one—one death is too many, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree. In Oregon, the evidence was that it was two, but it is also important to reflect on the fact that Oregon does not record these things. There is no record of the people who had anorexia—by and large, it is women—and who felt that they fit the criteria for assisted death, or that they were on a trajectory to fit it, because they had decided not to eat. So we cannot exactly rely on the two cases that have been found—and those were found only because of the research that was carried out. That does not quite satisfy the question.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it really does not matter what happens in other jurisdictions? The question is, does this legislation prevent people who are currently suffering from anorexia from seeking an assisted death or not?

[Naz Shah]

I completely agree with the hon. Member.

Coming back to the physicians who justified eligibility by citing the physical complications of anorexia, not just the mental disorder itself, we know that in all 60 of the cases that have been cited, the person did not have a terminal illness other than the one that was caused by anorexia, because that then fit the definition. Under the Bill, the same could happen here. I say in response to the hon. Member for Richmond Park that eating disorders or substance use disorders could still qualify if a doctor determines that the resulting physical deterioration meets the criteria for terminal illness. I will speak to anorexia in much more detail when we debate a further amendment that I have tabled.

Amendment 181 would also remove references to the Equality Act and the Mental Health Act, and the Bill would not define disability or mental disorder. That raises serious concerns, so I will not support the amendment. I encourage Committee members to strengthen the Bill in this regard and not weaken it. The Acts define mental illness and disability as taking a clear medical model, and again it is not clear whether my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley is further suggesting that a new definition should be used—but I am going over ground that I have already been over.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I have talked about that case, and the court concluded:

“The prospects of her recovery overall approach zero… Given that it is extremely unlikely that Ms L will recover from her anorexia it is…in her best interests to”

move to palliative care, as it was considered a terminal illness. In some ways, that makes my point for me: she was diagnosed as terminally ill. The purpose of the amendment is to close that loophole. The majority of these cases are young girls and young women. I do not want them to get to a stage where they qualify under the Bill because they have a terminal illness due to refusing food, because that can be treated. That is the point that I am trying to make.

Let us say that only one or two people with anorexia have an assisted death if the Bill becomes law without my amendment. I hope that every member of the Committee would agree that even one such death would be unacceptable. Some might say, “Oh, but we must not make the perfect the enemy of the good.” That has been said in the debate, or sentiments have been expressed that reflect that sentence.

That is a good argument to make when we are trying to persuade our teenagers to finish their homework for school and so on. It does not wash for me when we are trying to create a Bill with the strongest possible safeguards for vulnerable adults, and it is too close to the arguments made in favour of brutal actions across the globe. We say things like, “To make an omelette, you’ve got to crack a few eggs.” If we want to make the Bill the best it can be, we cannot use such arguments. Perfection is not the enemy of the good—perfection is absolutely what we should be pursuing in this Committee.

Reference was made to one of the witnesses who gave oral evidence. I remember being aghast at the idea that these two people who died in Oregon were somehow a red herring and that there had been only two. It was really disappointing, and I was extremely angry at that comment. That is not something we should be doing or the standard we should be setting. We cannot be saying that.

There is nothing good about letting people who have sadly reached an advanced state of malnutrition be given assisted dying. Surely we can agree on that. If this Bill does not include my safeguard, it will do two things. First, it will increase the dangers of anorexia. People already develop anorexia to such a degree that they perish of malnutrition. Allowing such people to apply for assisted dying will mean that more severe anorexics die. If we do not adopt my safeguard, we run the further risk that those who are not anorexic, but wish to hasten death, stop eating in order to qualify for an assisted death. Both of those would be truly malign. I would hope all Members of the Committee will accept my amendment to protect those who would otherwise be at risk of starving themselves to an assisted death.

I also want to bring to the Committee’s attention a public letter that has been released this afternoon by nearly 40 individuals who work in the field of eating disorders. They have said, on the amendment to which I am speaking:

“This amendment states that mental illness alone does not qualify as a terminal illness, but as the legal text (“Nothing in this subsection…”) makes clear it has no effect beyond restating that the condition must meet the requirements of clause 2(1). If a doctor holds that a mental illness meets the test in clause 2(1) for terminal illness, this amendment will do nothing to prevent that.”

They further say:

“Eating disorders are treatable. They are life-threatening when left untreated or poorly treated, but this risk is preventable, and deaths from eating disorders are not inevitable. As campaigners, clinicians, charities, and organisations working with those affected, we urge the committee to take these concerns seriously and ensure this bill does not put people with eating disorders at risk of premature death under the guise of assisted dying.”

On my amendment 402, they say:

“Amendment 402: Explicitly states that a person cannot be deemed terminally ill because they have stopped eating or drinking.”

On amendment 48, they say:

“Amendment 48: Clarifies that a person is only considered terminally ill if their death is reasonably certain within six months, even with all recommended treatment.”

They are supporting those amendments, 9, 10, 48, 402 and 11. On that note, I will finish.

[Sarah Olney]

I rise briefly to speak against amendment 234 in the name of my good and hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. I will keep it brief as I know he is not going to press to a vote.

First, the Bill that was voted on on Second Reading was a Bill for terminally ill adults in the last six months of their lives. I do not believe attempting to amend the scope of the Bill in Committee is what the House has asked us to do. I think the House voted for a Bill that was specifically for people within the last six months of their lives and that to be amending it—although I accept he is not putting it to a vote—is not in order.

Secondly, I want to reflect on Professor Sir Chris Whitty’s oral evidence to the Committee about how difficult it is to determine when somebody is within six months of the end of their life and how much more difficult it would be to determine whether someone is within the last 12 months of their life, notwithstanding that we are talking about a very specific category of people. For me, that really does give rise to the fear that we would not be able to make a specific determination on whether somebody was in the last 12 months of their life. There would be a risk that people actually have many years left to live. In the case of motor neurone disease, for example, we have seen prognoses of between two and five years, so we risk shortening people’s lives unduly. Furthermore, people might not want to make the prognosis, and therefore people who would like to have the right to end their life in their final 12 months because they have a neurodegenerative disorder might be denied that right, because it is impossible to come to such a determination.

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

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Opher]

I agree that the threshold is the same: does the patient have capacity or not? That is the single threshold. We often do mental capacity assessments for inheritance, control of bank accounts and that sort of thing; sometimes we do a very quick mental capacity assessment about the refusal of treatment. How long we take depends on how important the decision is. I suggest that a doctor assessing someone’s capacity to make a decision to end their life would have a serious, long discussion—up to 90 minutes, or possibly even two hours—to make sure that the doctor is convinced that the patient has capacity. The threshold is the same—it is about whether they have capacity—but that does not mean that the conversation is the same. In clinical terms, it is very clear that a conversation on those grounds would be much more involved than, for example, whether a person sees a dentist or not, or other conversations like that.

I totally understand the concerns that the amendment has been tabled to cover; however, my main point is that if we accept the amendment, it will make the Bill less safe. The reason for that is that, as I have said before, if we change something that is well used, and repeatedly used, it will make the interpretation much more complicated. We will have to re-train all the doctors and, I think, it will not protect patients.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

At risk of repeating something said in a previous sitting, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the amendment is not trying to amend the Mental Capacity Act itself, and it is not trying to change how the Mental Capacity Act is used in the majority of situations in which it is already used? All it is trying to say is that in this particular circumstance the Act needs to be applied in a different way. We are not trying to rewrite the Act in itself or any aspect of the way in which it is currently used.

[Dr Opher]

I understand what the amendment is trying to do; my argument is that it will not achieve that because it will muddy the waters of a mental capacity assessment, which will make how we do it less safe. I would also like to return to Professor Whitty’s comments and to say that in the majority of cases mental capacity is very clear. It does not actually take very long to assess whether someone has mental capacity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

It does reassure me, and I think it should reassure other Committee members. Having eight different people doing a capacity assessment is a very thorough safeguard for capacity. We have gone through the arguments many times in this Committee, but I do not feel that changing the polarity of mental capacity will do anything to make patients in this situation any safer. That is why I do not agree with the amendment. For fear of being interrupted any more, I think I will leave it at that.

[Sarah Olney]

I apologise for arriving late; thank you for calling me to speak anyway, Mr Dowd. I rise to speak in favour of amendment 50, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) and to which I have also put my name. I am conscious that we have been through many of the arguments about the Mental Capacity Act today and at an earlier sitting, but I am keen to press the amendment to a vote, because I think it would address some of the issues that have arisen.

The point of dispute appears to be whether the Mental Capacity Act, as it is currently operated for all the purposes for which it is used—I have no doubt that it is a very effective piece of legislation that is widely used and understood by clinicians everywhere, as the hon. Member for Stroud says—is the appropriate measure and tool to use for the Bill. This decision that people are embarking on is like no other, so I think it right and proper to consider whether the Act is the appropriate way to measure whether people are able to make it.

It is useful to reflect on the experience of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who drafted the amendment. I am conscious of the comments that the hon. Member for Ipswich made yesterday about poorly drafted amendments. My understanding is that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has extensive expertise in the area; he is an expert in mental capacity assessment, and I dare say that if he were in the room he would have many useful and interesting things to say. That is why I think his amendment bears greater weight, to the extent that one Member’s amendment should be regarded as any better than another’s.

Key to the Mental Capacity Act is the capacity test, which is about the ability to understand, retain, use and weigh the relevant information. The amendment attempts to address what it means to make an informed decision. Dr Annabel Price, who gave oral evidence to the Committee in her role with the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said that people planning to make the decision of seeking an assisted death

“would need to be able to understand the impact of the substance they are taking and what the likely positives and negatives of that are…The informed consent process is different from a refusal of treatment, and the informed consent process feeds into the capacity assessment.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 277, Q361.]

The point, which has come up in previous debates, is whether an informed decision to refuse treatment can be regarded as the same as an informed decision to end one’s life. My personal view is that the two things are quite different, and that a different standard of capacity should therefore be brought to bear on the decision.

I support amendment 50 because it sets out in detail how the Mental Capacity Act should be used specifically in relation to this decision. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Stroud, it would not change the Act or tamper in any way with how it is currently used; it would merely specify the particular ways in which it should be used in relation to the decision.

I hear what the hon. Member said about doctors’ use of the Act, as well as what the chief medical officer said. I am also conscious of what the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford has said about the variety of experience that he has, as a parent, with professionals’ understanding of the Act. That came across in a lot of the oral evidence. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said, the chief medical officer himself had to clarify the remarks that he made to the Committee in oral evidence. The chief medical officer implied that there were different ways of applying the Act depending on the decision to be made, but there are not—that was a very clear clarification. That implies that there is a difference in the way doctors approach the use of the Act. We cannot have a difference of approach when it comes to a decision of such momentous importance as the decision whether someone has the capacity to choose to end their life.

The amendment reflects the fact that there is value in attempting to standardise how the Mental Capacity Act should be used in relation to the decision. That is why we should agree to it: it is important that Members of this House make a clear statement in the Bill about what we expect doctors to do as they approach an assessment of capacity. We should specify the minimum understanding of capacity to choose an assisted death, which includes an understanding of the likely process of all treatment options, including non-treatment and prognostic uncertainty.

In her evidence, Dr Rachel Clarke said:

“I would not be the first person to make the observation that sometimes doctors can be very pleased with their own abilities at a particular practice, and that practice might be having a conversation where you are assessing someone’s capacity.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 80, Q103.]

Doctors have different assessments of their own ability to assess capacity. That is why a standardised approach, as set out in amendment 50, is so important. I stress how important it is that Parliament be the place where the standards for what MPs expect as an assessment of mental capacity are set. We should be the ones to determine them, rather than leaving them to the vagaries of individual clinicians.

The assessment of capacity and the explanation of treatment options to the person considering an assisted death need to include the extent of prognostic certainty about their illness or condition. We spoke yesterday about the difficulty of knowing whether someone has six or 12 months left to live, and of knowing the extent to which they are going to deteriorate. We also covered in detail the relevant and available care and treatment, including palliative care, hospice care or other care. That needs to be part of the conversation about somebody’s capacity to make the decision.

Amendment 50 states that

“a decision to proceed under this Act does not prevent or make unavailable any care and treatment provision that would normally be provided.”

It would therefore be clear that somebody had assessed the full range of their options. The amendment makes clear a fundamental issue that I do not think is otherwise covered by the Mental Capacity Act, or at least not to this level of specificity, which is that

“the person’s decision to proceed…must be theirs alone and not bound or directed by the views or decisions of others.”

We have talked about the importance of that issue in relation to the Bill as a whole, but it would be valuable to include it in the clause as a specific requirement for assessing somebody’s capability.

Doubts have been expressed across the Committee about whether the Bill goes far enough in assessing the extent to which somebody might be under duress or coercion. Putting such a provision in the Bill, as part of the capacity assessment, would be an important and essential safeguard. Once someone has made the decision to seek an assisted death, is the doctor or assessing person confident that the person could unmake the decision or change their mind at any stage?

[Dr Opher]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said, there are eight different opportunities for assessing capacity in the process, the last of which is before the patient takes the medicine that will end their life. At all those stages, it is possible to stop the process, and the patient is in total control.

I do not disagree with anything in amendment 50, but I believe that everything in it is already in the Bill, under other clauses. I do not think that the amendment would add anything to the Bill; it would actually make assessing capacity more confusing, from a legal perspective.

[Sarah Olney]

What I would say in reply to the first part of the hon. Member’s intervention is that there are plenty of opportunities for the person to change their mind—although I might slightly indelicately point out that there will eventually not be a further opportunity; that is the point of what we are trying to do—but that does not necessarily mean that the person has the capacity to make the right decision at each of those opportunities. That is what the doctors will need to assess.

I return to my earlier point: it is important that Parliament specify, by way of this amendment, precisely what it means by assessing capacity. In the context of all the evidence we heard that there is not necessarily a standardised approach across the medical profession, it is important that the standardised approach be specified in the legislation. Clause 3 is the appropriate place to specify it.

The other major point is that patients need to understand the process by which the assisted death will be enabled. The Bill states elsewhere that it will be by the ingestion of an “approved substance”. It is important that we understand exactly what that means, or what it might mean. We will doubtless get on to talking about the approved substance and the proper legislation around its use.

We did not speak much during the oral evidence sessions about the use of the approved substance, but it is important that people understand that any medical procedure can fail, including with an approved substance, and we do not know how long the substance will take to be effective. Nor do we know what the patient’s experience will be after taking the approved substance. It is important that they understand, to the extent that it is possible for a doctor to give them the information, what they are undertaking.

In his evidence, Professor House said:

“It is a striking feature of the Bill that informed consent is not really specified properly. The doctor is required to ask the person what they want to happen in the event of complications without having previously explained to them what all the complications might be…There is no standard informed consent form related to the Bill, for example—of the sort that you would expect to sign if you were having a serious intervention in the NHS.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Private Member’s Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 169, Q216.]

He said that informed consent was very underspecified in the Bill. The amendment could start to address that. It is important that people have the capacity to understand what they are undertaking—not just that they are choosing an assisted death, but all the potential attendant risks and complications.

I return to my opening point, which is that it is important that Parliament specify a standard by which mental capacity can be assessed in relation to this specific decision. I feel that I have made the point a number of times, but I will make it once more: we are not proposing to rewrite the Mental Capacity Act or tamper in any way with how it is currently used. We are merely setting a higher bar—a higher standard for how it should be applied in this particular case, because of the very specific nature of the decision that patients are being asked to make in this particular circumstance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I want to pick up on a point that the hon. Member made before the previous intervention about the rights of the doctors themselves. This is an important point that we do not consider enough. We talk a lot about the rights of the patient, quite rightly, but this Bill will provide the means by which another person can get involved in someone’s death. It is really important that the legislation protects the rights of that person—the doctor involved—as well. Does he agree that providing greater clarity about the standard required to assess capacity will help the doctor to protect their own rights, perhaps in response to legal challenge from families, and that it is important that we consider the rights of the doctor as well as the patient?

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is an interesting irony of the Bill that it is presented as the free choice of individuals, but actually it imposes all sorts of obligations and repercussions on other people—the very term “assisted” conveys that. Many other people will be affected by the decision to take an assisted death. She is right that it would be very helpful for the doctors to be confident that they have done their job properly because they have a clear list of communications they are expected to make.

My understanding is that doctors are indemnified against legal challenge in consequence of decisions they make around this; that is an interesting point and one that I am uncomfortable with, but we will come to that later in the Bill. Leaving lawsuits out of it, from the point of view of the doctor’s professional conduct and their peace of mind, it would be very helpful for them to have it clearly specified what information they are required to convey.

I am grateful for Members’ interventions, and I appreciate the good faith and good sense that has been spoken, but I have not yet heard any reason for objecting to this amendment, other than the possible question of its being otiose and not necessary. That is not a sufficient reason to object to an amendment. We should not be objecting simply on drafting grounds. There can be tidying-up exercises later if there is repetition. I have not heard objections to the content of the amendment, and I would very much welcome Members’ support.

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

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Francis]

Thank you for letting me speak, Mr Dowd. I will be brief.

As we reach the end of our debate on clause 4, I regret some of the decisions that we have made. I welcome the fact that in due course we will discuss amendment 418, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, which also relates to the preliminary conversation. My concern remains that it is “a” preliminary conversation, not, in my determination, “the” preliminary conversation. My amendments would have meant that “the” preliminary conversation could not be held before someone is 18. As I read amendment 418, someone could have preliminary conversations before they are 18; it is just that it will be recorded that there was a preliminary conversation after they turned 18. I regret that, as clause 4 now stands, the paperwork and initial discussion must be completed after someone is 18, but that will not necessarily apply to a preliminary conversation.

Equally, I have some regrets in relation to learning disability issues. I welcome the commitment from my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge on the amendment that she aims to bring forward, but I am conscious that it is not on the amendment paper for everybody to see. Just as she committed to work with me, I will continue to work with her on bringing it forward.

We have debated clause 4 long and hard, but I do believe that we have a clause that has loopholes in relation to people under 18 and to people with learning disabilities and autism. I will not press it to a Division, but I regret the fact that we have reached this place.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Initial request for assistance: first declaration

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 271, in clause 5, page 3, line 5, at end insert—

“(1A) A person may not sign a first declaration within six months of being diagnosed with a condition which meets the requirements of section (2)(1)(a) unless they have received a psychosocial intervention in relation to their diagnosis with that condition.

(1B) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, create exceptions to the provisions of subsection (1A).

(1C) Regulations under subsection (1B) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This amendment would create a requirement that the person must have received a psychosocial intervention if a terminal diagnosis was received less than six months ago. The Secretary of State would be given a delegated power to create exceptions to such a requirement with regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 272, in clause 30, page 18, line 32, at end insert—

“(f) the form of the psychosocial intervention required under section 5(1A).”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 271, and would allow the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice in connection with the requirement for a psychosocial intervention.

[Sarah Olney]

I will not take up a huge amount of time, because a lot of what I wanted to say has been said in previous sittings, but I return to the issue of people who may request an assisted death who may also be suffering from a mental health condition. Amendment 271 was tabled by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), and specifically concerns people who have received their terminal illness diagnosis less than six months ago and whose prognosis is less than 6 months in the future. The amendment specifically addresses the fact that the risk of suicide for people who are suffering from a terminal illness increases when the diagnosis has been made less than six months before.

Professor Louis Appleby is a key academic in the area of suicide prevention and advises the Government on it. Research by him and Professor Sleeman found:

“Diagnosis of severe conditions was associated with an increased risk of dying by suicide”.

In particular, they found:

“The increase in risk was more pronounced in the first six months after diagnosis or first treatment.”

They concluded that:

“A diagnosis of severe physical illness is associated with higher suicide risk. The interaction of physical and mental illness emphasises the importance of collaborative physical and mental health care in these patients.”

We talked at length in an earlier sitting about the risk that bringing in an assisted dying law would undermine suicide prevention strategies and efforts to address the issue of suicide. It is important that we return to this issue, and that we look seriously at the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire, because it addresses the specific concern around those people who have had their diagnosis of terminal illness for less than six months and are therefore at a heightened risk of suicide.

NICE guidelines say that if someone is at risk of self-harm or suicide, a clinician must ensure that a psychosocial assessment has been carried out either by a mental health specialist or by a trained person in primary care. That should cover the person’s living arrangements, relationships, social support network, mental health disorders, risk factors, safeguarding concerns and so on. Professor Allan House told the Committee in oral evidence that this should be part of the assessment for assisted dying. He said the current assessment only answers the question:

“‘Is this person able to make decisions?’…it does not cover the psychological and social assessment.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 165, Q210.]

We have discussed at length the lack of the psychosocial assessment in relation to everybody who makes a request for an assisted death, but the amendment seeks to identify those who are at heightened risk of suicide—those who have received their diagnosis of terminal illness within the last six months—and specifically requires psychosocial assessments for those people.

Depression is common among those with terminal illness. Dr Price from the Royal College of Psychiatrists told the Committee that among

“people nearing the end of life…depression 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”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 275, Q359.]

and that that wish is significantly alleviated if depression is treated, which is an extremely important point for the Committee to consider.

The Pathfinders Neuromuscular Alliance, which is a user-led charity for those with muscle-weakening conditions such as muscular dystrophy, have stated in written evidence:

“Pathfinders members have outlined how important it is to ensure psychological assessments are part of the process in order to ensure that the individual is in a position to make an informed decision. One member outlined:

‘I’ve been there, I’ve wanted to die, and I’ve been in the position where I would take that option if it was given to me, but looking back I can see I was depressed and now I’m so glad that I didn’t take that option.’”

Currently, the Bill does not require anyone to explore any psychosocial factors in respect of someone’s situation. Although the person can be referred to a psychiatrist under clause 9(3), that only covers a capacity assessment. Again, it only answers the question of whether the person is able to make decisions, and addresses none of the other relevant factors. In Oregon, there is more room to explore those factors—the doctor may refer a patient for counselling if the patient may be suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression, causing impaired judgment.

On addressing the risk of social pressure and internalised feelings of burden, the British Geriatrics Society warned in its written evidence:

“There is an established link between frailty and feeling a burden to others, meaning many older people with treatable clinical frailty may choose an assisted death to avoid burdening their family, which we view as unacceptable.”

The Committee has already discussed at length the issue of older people or people with a terminal illness wishing to choose an assisted death motivated by the wish to save their family money. Dr Jerram, Dr Wagland and Dr Davis found that attitudes towards assisted dying changed over time. Patients closest to death were least likely to want assisted dying, suggesting that fear of suffering was the driving cause and that it may lessen as end of life care improves.

Psychosocial care is fundamental to good end-of-life care. Committee members and witnesses from other jurisdictions have said that palliative care and assisted dying can complement each other, and that assessment should be part of the picture. Glyn Berry told the Committee about the importance of

“the psychosocial aspect of palliative and end-of-life care”.––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 53, Q58.]

In its written evidence, the British Association of Social Workers said that

“good health care is not just about clinical interventions”,

but also about

“the wider social context in which a person lives their life…This is particularly pertinent with assisted dying.”

That needs to come before the first declaration, because once somebody has signed that declaration, they are already on a pathway. The amendment would provide an opportunity for people’s needs to be met at the first opportunity.

In conclusion, I emphasise the importance of a psychosocial intervention, which was stressed by a number of witnesses giving oral evidence to the Committee. We have discussed this issue at length. Earlier amendments have been voted down, but I stress the particular importance of the amendment 271 for that group of people who are in the first months of their diagnosis of a terminal illness and the raised level of risk of suicide that they present.

[Sojan Joseph]

As the hon. Member for Richmond Park says, we have repeatedly debated people’s mental health and how, once somebody has had a diagnosis of a terminal illness, it can have an impact on their decision making. Amendment 425, which we discussed earlier, is about having access to a multidisciplinary team. That team could have on it a social worker or a psychiatrist who would make a comprehensive assessment, which would cover amendment 271.

The amendment is an opportunity for the Committee to look into this issue, to make the Bill stronger, and to bring in safeguards for vulnerable people who may feel suicidal, and may feel a burden to society or to the healthcare system, and may choose this way. Those people who are vulnerable would have a psychosocial and mental health assessment, which would make the Bill stronger and safer.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I rise to speak against the amendment; there are significant issues with it both in practice and in principle. In terms of practice, I draw Members’ attention to the fact that the amendment does not mention a psychosocial assessment; it mentions mandating “a psychosocial intervention”. As defined by the World Health Organisation, a psychosocial intervention can be as brief as five minutes. I know that it is a brief intervention: I used to manage services delivering psychosocial interventions. Nowhere in the amendment is the type of psychosocial intervention or its purpose specified. If Members hope that the amendment will lead to a psychosocial assessment—

[Sarah Olney]

For clarity, if the amendment specified a psychosocial assessment, would the hon. Gentleman be minded to support it?

[Lewis Atkinson]

The holistic assessment is already set out elsewhere in the Bill, so the amendment is not required. Amendment 275, which we made to clause 4, requires “all appropriate” psychological support to have been discussed with an individual in advance of the first declaration. I clearly supported that amendment, and I am very grateful that the Committee did.

From a practical point of view, amendment 271 talks about six months from the point of diagnosis, but if I had prostate cancer, I might have had prostate cancer for absolutely years—so is it six months from the point of being diagnosed with prostate cancer or six months from the point of being told that that is terminal? There are a huge range of practical issues with the amendment as currently written, but there are also issues regarding the principle as well.

Fundamentally the amendment starts with the assumption that there is something psychologically wrong with a person if they have received a terminal diagnosis, and that they need to be persuaded of the fact that exploring their options is not the right thing to do. That is fundamentally wrong. There are genuine issues and concerns around the tragedy of suicide in all cases where it occurs. But in the instance following terminal diagnosis, as the hon. Lady set out, a prevention strategy should not start by assuming that everyone requires a psychosocial intervention regardless of screening, risk factors or any assessment.

[Sarah Olney]

Would the hon. Gentleman not accept that a terminal illness in itself is a risk factor for an increased risk of suicide, and also that that risk is increased in the first six months following the diagnosis? That is the thinking behind the amendment.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I accept that that is a risk factor, but it is by no means determinative. Therefore, that risk factor has to be considered in the round with other risk factors such as levels of family and social support. As set out, the amendment does not distinguish between someone receiving a terminal diagnosis by themselves without any support network, and someone who expects to receive a terminal diagnosis at the end of a very long illness. As a point of principle I do not accept that we should mandate psychosocial interventions or that people must receive a level of healthcare in order for them to access other options related to their care—let alone the practicalities, which I have laid out, about when the provision would apply in relation to diagnosis and the fact that it is an intervention, which is in no way an assessment or any such thing.

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

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We will address in later debates the point that insufficient attention will be given to the reasons why an application has been refused. If an application has been refused on the grounds of coercion, a future doctor will not necessarily know that that was the reason. As the hon. Lady says, in cases of coercive control there is a very real danger that if a person has been unduly influenced to seek an assisted death and the doctor declines their application, possibly because they detected coercive control, the patient can then be coerced, or influenced, into starting again with a new doctor. There is nothing to stop that in the Bill. We have a real problem, and I hope the Committee will consider the amendments.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will speak to my amendments 458 to 460, which would tighten the process around seeking a determination from a second independent doctor if the first has refused to say that the criteria are met. The amendments relate to clause 10, which I will say more about when we come to it, but they have been selected for debate in this group.

The risks of abuse in seeking a second independent doctor’s opinion are well illustrated by the evidence we have received from Dr Sharon Quick, the president of the Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation, who tells us about the experience of Dr Charles Bentz, who refused to provide a second opinion for a physician-assisted suicide for a patient he had referred to an oncologist for cancer treatment. The co-ordinating doctor persisted and clearly found a compliant second opinion, as two weeks later his patient was dead.

Dr Charles Bentz said in his testimony:

“I was caring for a 76 year-old man who came in with a sore on his arm. The sore was ultimately diagnosed as a malignant melanoma, and I referred him to two cancer specialists for evaluation and therapy. I had known this patient and his wife for over a decade. He was an avid hiker, a popular hobby here in Oregon. As he went through his therapy, he became less able to do this activity, becoming depressed, which was documented in his chart.

During this time, my patient expressed a wish for doctor-assisted suicide to one of the cancer specialists. Rather than taking the time and effort to address the question of depression, or ask me to talk with him as his primary care physician and as someone who knew him, the medical oncologist called me and asked me to be the ‘second opinion’ for his suicide. She told me that barbiturate overdoses ‘work very well’ for patients like this, and that she had done this many times before.

I told her that assisted-suicide was not appropriate for this patient and that I did not concur. I was very concerned about my patient’s mental state, and I told her that addressing his underlying issues would be better than simply giving him a lethal prescription. Unfortunately, my concerns were ignored, and approximately two weeks later my patient was dead from an overdose prescribed by this doctor. His death certificate, filled out by this doctor, listed the cause of death as melanoma. When I reviewed his chart, the radiation oncologist documented a clear diagnosis of depression.

My patient did not die from his cancer, but at the hands of a once-trusted colleague who failed to recognize and treat his depression. This experience has affected me, my practice, and my understanding of what it means to be a physician. What happened to this patient, who was weak and vulnerable, raises several questions that I have had to answer.”

I appreciate that, under the Bill, Dr Bentz could not have been the independent doctor as he already knew the patient and was treating him, but in that case that contributed to enhanced safety. Dr Bentz’s example illustrates the real risks of abuse in a person being able to seek the opinion of a second independent doctor. The starting point is that the task of the independent doctor is not that of a normal doctor. It is not to cure the patient or to provide advice about medical treatments: it is to check whether the eligibility requirements are met. It is a decision-making function, not a medical one—albeit, of course, a decision-making function that is informed by medical expertise.

In the light of that function, it is not appropriate for someone to seek another decision simply because they do not like the answer that has been given. The independent doctor is asked to apply an objective set of criteria against the evidence in front of them in order to make an assessment. It is not the case—or it should not be—that a different doctor would come to a different assessment based on the same criteria and the same evidence. If we are doing our job properly in the Committee, we should not expect that a second opinion could be arrived at.

I have no objection to provision being made for a person to see a second independent doctor if the first did not manage to finish the task. Nor do I object in respect of cases in which there is a change of circumstances—for example, if the patient’s condition deteriorates to such a degree that although the first independent doctor thought the six-month prognosis test was not met, it becomes clear that it is met—which is the point of my amendment 458. In such circumstances, it would make sense to allow the patient to go to a second independent doctor. Although my preference in such a situation would be to go back to the original independent doctor and ask them to reconsider in the light of the change of circumstances, that may not always be possible. Amendment 458 is an attempt to find a middle ground.

Amendment 459 seeks to reduce the possibility of abuse by ensuring that the second independent doctor has available the reasons why the first independent doctor concluded that the person was not eligible. That would allow the second independent doctor to approach the assessment with open eyes. Such a report would be particularly useful when it comes to the detection of coercion or pressure, as the first independent doctor might have spotted something that the second independent doctor might not easily see.

Let us consider the evidence of Dr Tim Howard, who has been deeply involved in end-of-life palliative care and assisted dying for many years. He has been a non-exec director of a health authority, a member of an ethics committee, a postgraduate teacher and, finally, chair of the General Medical Council fitness to practise tribunals, dealing with complex medico-legal principles and decisions in public. He also helped to set up the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, which separated medical standard setting and investigation from adjudication.

Dr Howard says:

“I remain uncomfortable that when either doctor, the assessing doctor or the independent doctor, declines to agree with a request for”

assisted dying,

“they take no further action. I feel that the reasons for their refusal should, as well as being given to the patient, be recorded in the patient’s notes, and given to any ‘second opinion’ independent doctor. This is not an attempt to bias; it is a value judgement that criteria are not being met, and as such, is sharing an early warning to be extra careful.”

The Committee should note that he has, in his own words,

“been a strong proponent of medical assistance in dying…and a member of Dignity in Dying for many years.”

[Danny Kruger]

It does seem an extraordinary gap in the Bill, but I am afraid it is not unique to this Bill. In countries where assisted dying in some form is legal, there are remarkable failures to insist on the proper recording of applications that are declined or about which there are concerns. This speaks to the general cloud of unknowing that we are operating in. Does the hon. Lady agree that were we to pass the Bill, it would be great if, at least in this country, we kept proper records?

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Member is exactly right. An assessment of whether somebody should qualify for assisted dying needs to be based on objective criteria. If those are not met, the only way that a second independent doctor should have a role is if either the circumstances have changed or, for whatever reason, the first doctor is unable to reach a conclusion. There must not be a situation in which the first doctor has made one decision and a second doctor arrives at a different decision, because that would imply a variability in the way the objective assessments are made. Not tightening this loophole would imply that we are prepared to allow such a variability across the medical profession, and I do not think we should allow that.

My final amendment in this group is amendment 460. I am concerned that the word “particular” in clause 10(3) negates the subsection’s purpose of ensuring that only one second opinion from the co-ordinating doctor can be sought, because a person could withdraw their first declaration, make a new one and start the process afresh; that declaration would then not be the “particular” first declaration. By removing “particular”, the loophole would be closed, and the safeguard would be made more effective. This concern was brought out well in Disability Labour’s written evidence:

“We are concerned that whilst 10(3) only allows for one second opinion to be sought, there appears to be nothing in the bill that stipulates a waiting period before a new application can be made. This risks applications being repeated until a supporting opinion can be obtained, thus negating the purpose of 10(3).”

I hope the Committee will accept my amendments.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park for her considered amendments. I would like to go through all the amendments in the group.

Amendment 348 is about the doctor communicating the outcome of the assessment, but I understand that that is already covered in clause 8(5)(b), which states that, having carried out the second assessment, the independent doctor will

“provide each of the coordinating doctor and the person who was assessed with a copy of the statement.”

I therefore do not think the amendment is necessary—it would be doubling up.

--- Later in debate ---

On the idea of doctor shopping, one of the provisions in the Bill is specifically concerned with that: it allows one, and only one, second opinion to the independent doctor. In medical practice, it is normal and fair that a patient has one second opinion on any assessment, so it is fair to the patient that they can go back to the co-ordinating doctor and get referred for a second opinion from another person.

[Sarah Olney]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Danny Kruger]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

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

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

To pick up on what the hon. Member for Spen Valley said, the multidisciplinary panel comes at the very end of the process. She has talked about the different stages, but they all occur in isolation. There is a doctor, then there is another doctor, and then there might be a psychiatric referral. We heard clearly in oral evidence about the value of the multidisciplinary panel referring to each other and taking evidence collectively. The strength of it would be that it occurred at the beginning of the process. I wonder whether the hon. Member will reflect on that.

[Daniel Francis]

I think that is the case. As the hon. Member said yesterday, people from those professional fields—in their written evidence, particularly—asked to be included in the process, but I do not think they were asking to be included at the end of the process; I think they were asking to be included earlier.

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

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

I regret that my right hon. Friend is making that argument. The fact is that the panel is already going to consider whether it is appropriate. There might not be some professional who is there with the purpose of suggesting that there are other things that the panel should consider, but the patient is already lying there waiting for powerful people in another room to make a decision about whether they are going to get an assisted suicide or not. That process is already going on.

On my right hon. Friend’s point that it is intolerable for somebody to hear the case made against their assisted death, let me put to him an alternative hypothesis. Rather than somebody in the situation that he describes, let us imagine somebody who is the victim of years of coercive control, who has undiagnosed mental health conditions, who is feeling a burden on their family and whose relatives want their money. None of that has yet been fully identified through the initial doctor’s stage of the process, but it has been commented on in some of the evidence that the multidisciplinary team heard. That person might hope that somebody is there making the case for them, as might their family.

It is totally appropriate for a court to hear that this procedure should not go ahead because of those other factors, which are only now being properly understood by the decision maker. That decision maker is doing so openly, not in a private session. The decision is being made not by people who are committed to the procedure and process of assisted suicide, but by an independent judge, sitting in their judicial capacity in open court, with all the safeguards and accountability that the judicial system has. That feels to me like a perfectly appropriate safeguard, and I suggest that it is, in principle, what the House of Commons thought they were getting when they supported this.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I am just reflecting on the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire’s intervention. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the purpose either of the panel or the High Court judge is to establish beyond all doubt that if a person is assisted in their death, no crime is being committed, and that in order to establish that, we need to apply the highest standards of evidence? Whether an adversarial or an inquisitorial process is used to collect that evidence, there must be some sort of process. That may be uncomfortable for the patient but it is necessary for their friends, relatives and the doctors being asked to assist. That is really what we are trying to achieve.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that absolutely central point. This is a judicial process, and a decision is being made. I recognise that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has correctly abandoned the claim that this is a judge-led process—because it is not—but the function of this panel will be essentially judicial, not least because the decision to proceed with an assisted death entails the people involved in administering it being exempt from criminal law and not being liable to prosecution under the Suicide Act 1961. We have made an exemption for what is otherwise a crime, and if they do not get the go-ahead from this panel, they will be committing a crime if they proceed. So in all essence, a judicial decision is being made, and it is right that we have the protections of a court.

Let me make a couple of brief points about the practicalities, and they have partly been made by others. The central point is that we do not know whether the professionals who will be required to take part in this panel have the capacity to do so. We know that the judges do not have the capacity under the current design of the law, which is an essential flaw—or we think they do not, because that point has been comprehensively argued by the judiciary and I suspect by officials at the Ministry of Justice. What we do not know is whether the psychiatry and social work professions have adequate capacity. There has been no impact assessment, and we have had a lot of comments from representative bodies expressing anxiety about the capacity of these professions to supply the panels.

The point I am trying to make is that we cannot, and should not, legislate in the dark. We should not draft laws in ignorance of these basic facts. We need to know whether the law before us is workable in the real world, and I would be grateful for clarification on that from Ministers when they speak to this clause. In my view, we need robust and clear data on how many professionals might take up the posts, and more importantly, we need the clearest and earliest warning of where there might be deficits that would compromise the entire system, particularly around the capacity of psychiatrists. We have a central problem with ignorance around capacity, but my strong view is that we do have a problem with capacity.

An important point was made by Alex Ruck Keene in evidence around the judge-led process, which we discussed earlier. His point was that it would not be possible for the judge to decline an assisted death on the basis of what he calls service denial—that is, there is not enough social care treatment or medical treatment available for the patient. If the reason why the patient were to receive an assisted death was that the local authority would not provide them with improvements to their home or funding, or that they could not get the medical treatment they wanted early enough, that would be a legitimate reason, or would not be a reason not to proceed with an assisted death. That is a very grave concern to us, and it is what happens in other countries. We heard this morning about evidence that when a patient is denied the medical or social care that they need to carry on living and living well, they are offered an assisted death. In those circumstances, I would really hope that the decision maker would conclude that it is wrong that we offer an assisted death, and that we in fact need to insist that they get the support they need to live well. I reference that because, as I understand it, there is no opportunity in the new clauses for the panel to decline an assisted death on grounds that it is being sought only because of the inadequacy of the wider care system.

It has been suggested that the judicial option remains, through the judicial review system. Other hon. Members have responded to that point, so I will not labour it. However, I want to make the point that new clause 17 makes judicial review less likely because it offers the opportunity for a sort of appeal. It is an appeal only in one direction—against a refusal—but there is a sort of appeal process in the system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, if there is a JR, it is likely to take a long time. There is nothing about whether legal aid will be arranged. The state has proposed to pay for people to go through the assisted dying process, but is not prepared to pay anybody to challenge it, so they would have to raise their own money. It would also take a long time. It would be much simpler and better, whether it is a panel or a judge, to set up the system in a way that allows both sides to be told and that does not rely on a cumbersome judicial review system.

I reiterate that I support the multidisciplinary team. It is a very good thing that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has decided to introduce a proper stage at which a psychiatrist and a social worker will have to consider the application properly. I have concerns about how it would actually work, which I will come on to, but having a multidisciplinary team is in principle the right system. I stress that the professionals who made the case for multidisciplinary teams as part of the assessment process have not endorsed the new clauses. They are not saying that we have adequately met their concerns about the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey.

As my hon. Friend the Minister for Care and I have made clear throughout debate, the Government continue to remain neutral on the Bill and do not have a position on assisted dying. Once again, my remarks will focus on the legal and practical impacts of the amendments, with a view to assisting Committee members. I will first speak to amendments 371 to 373, 377, 378, 381, 388, 390 and 391, new clauses 14, 15, 17 and 21, and new schedules 1 and 2, all tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.

In executing our duties to ensure that the legislation, if passed, is legally robust and workable, the Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley in relation to the amendments, which propose the voluntary assisted dying commission and the panels. They reflect my hon. Friend’s intent to replace the court approval process that is currently set out in the Bill. I confirm that this change was driven not by capacity concerns from within Government, but by the Bill promoter’s policy intent. Let me be clear: the High Court stage could be made to work, but if the Committee and Parliament elect for the commissioner and panel model, the state will work to deliver that.

New clause 14 and consequential amendment 391 would provide for the establishment of a voluntary assisted dying commissioner. In keeping with other appointments of this significance, the commissioner would be appointed by the Prime Minister, and the individual in post must hold or have held office—so it is not sitting judges, but could be a retired judge—as a judge of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal or the High Court.

New clause 14 sets out the central functions of the commissioner, which will be detailed further in new clauses 15 and 17 and new schedule 1. The commissioner would receive documents, including the reports from the co-ordinating doctor and declarations under the legislation, make appointments to the list of persons eligible to sit on assisted dying review panels, and refer cases to those panels, which would replace the role of the High Court in the original draft of the Bill. In addition, the commissioner would have the responsibility for monitoring the Bill’s operation and reporting annually to Parliament, which we will no doubt come to in clause 34. It is important to pause there, because that is one aspect in which the commissioner model is distinct from that of a court or tribunal. It will serve multiple functions, not least the monitoring of the Bill’s operation and reporting on that annually to Parliament.

New schedule 1 contains practical arrangements for the office of the voluntary assisted dying commissioner, as established in new clause 14. In practice, we anticipate that the commissioner’s office will be a non-departmental public body. The establishment of such an office to support the Government-appointed chair or commissioner is common practice for roles of this nature. One such model is the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, which is chaired by a person who is holding or who has held high judicial office. The schedule also introduces the role of a deputy commissioner, who, like the commissioner, must have been appointed by the Prime Minister and hold or have held office as a judge of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal or the High Court.

Both the commissioner and deputy commissioner would be appointed for terms of five years, with their remuneration set by the Secretary of State. The commissioner would have the ability to appoint their own staff, having obtained approval from the Secretary of State in regard to the number of staff, the remuneration and the terms, as well as providing an annual statement of accounts. In the ordinary way, such a public body would be subject to other statutory provisions, not least the Equality Act 2010.

New clause 15 would establish the mechanism for the referral by the voluntary assisted dying commissioner to an assisted dying review panel. When the commissioner receives a first declaration from the person seeking assistance, and reports from the co-ordinating and independent doctors as to their assessments of the person—including a statement by those doctors as to the person’s eligibility for assistance—they would be required to refer the case to a panel as soon as reasonably practical. In practice, the task of organising the work of each panel would fall to the commissioner’s office. The co-ordinating doctor would be required to inform the commissioner where a first or second declaration is cancelled. Where the commissioner is informed of the cancellation of the first declaration, they must not refer the case to a panel, or must inform the panel to disregard the application if already referred.

Amendments 371, 372, 373, 377, 378, 381, 388 and 390 are all consequential amendments on new clause 21, and together establish the mechanism for the consideration of cases by the assisted dying review panels in place of the High Court. Panels would be required to review each case and issue a certificate of eligibility where they are satisfied that all requirements set out in the Bill have been met.

[Sarah Olney]

I seek clarification. As drafted, in clause 12(1)(c), the High Court would give

“a declaration that the requirements of this Act have been met”,

but in new clause 21(6)(a), the panel is required to issue a certificate of eligibility, to which the Minister just referred. I seek the Minister’s guidance on whether it is the Government’s view that the High Court declaration has equal weight in law to the certificate of eligibility set out in new clause 21. I ask particularly because that certificate will be relied on for the purposes of suspending the Suicide Act 1961, under which a criminal offence would otherwise have been committed. The certificate of eligibility will need to be relied on to demonstrate that no criminal offence has been committed under that law. Is it the view of the Minister and the Government that a High Court direction, as originally required, can now be fully replaced by, and have equal weight with, a certificate of eligibility?

[Sarah Sackman]

As I understand it, everything has to be internally coherent in whatever the final draft of the Bill is. Within this structure, because in this case it is a panel that issues the certificate, it is its own sui generis certificate appropriate to this process. The declaration that was referred to in the earlier draft is one that the High Court would normally do. Given that this is on the face of the Bill, and will be in primary legislation, it would have legal force and would, if it were internally coherent with the rest of the legislation, have the legal effect of operating coherently with the criminal offences and, indeed, with the suspension of the Suicide Act, as the hon. Lady just asked. That is my understanding.

[Sarah Olney]

My original question was more about whether it has the same legal force as a High Court direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

I drew the comparison for the purpose of showing where judges and legal experts are deployed in a multidisciplinary forum that is not a court or tribunal. I was not suggesting that there is a straight-line analogy. After all, a Parole Board panel is performing a different function to make a global assessment of risk. That is what it is ultimately doing; it is not strictly speaking an adversarial process in that sense.

The situation that the Bill addresses is that of an individual seeking to establish their eligibility for a right that—if the Act is passed—Parliament will have conferred on those who meet the criteria. It is not an adjudication. It is the panel’s function to assess, through the various conversations and provisions and by interrogating the information that has been provided, whether it is properly satisfied that the eligibility of the person’s election to avail themselves of that right is sound.

[Sarah Olney]

I am trying to clarify this for my own benefit, because I am not familiar with some of these procedures. Is there a difference between a High Court judge leading an inquiry or sitting on a panel, using their legal experience to provide advice or recommendations or give an opinion, and having a judge sitting in the High Court, who, under the original wording of clause 12, would be giving a direction? If there is a difference, have we not crossed from one role to the other by introducing a panel rather than a High Court direction? Does that matter for the purposes of the legislation?

[Sarah Sackman]

To be absolutely clear, what we are discussing reflects the intent of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. It is important to break it down. We have a judge in the role of the commissioner, and the commissioner will set up the framework and guidance for how the panels will operate and will lend their expertise. Our judges often sit on the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, developing the appropriate practice to govern the process in question. In this case, it would be the process of providing the third layer and the assessment whether the eligibility criteria have been met.

The commissioner would also—and this is where the role is distinct from that of a court or tribunal—provide a monitoring and reporting function to Parliament on the operation of the Act. That is a fundamental distinction from the model that we will have if we pursue clause 12, because in that case each application for an assisted death would go to whichever High Court judge happened to be sitting on that day. There would be no requirement for particular expertise on the part of the High Court judge, and that judge would not have to report on the operation of the Act. It is a different model that my hon. Friend has elected.

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

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you this morning, Ms McVey. My amendments 374 and 471 serve to clarify that the second declaration must be made before it is witnessed—it is a drafting amendment—and to bring clause 13 in line with the reporting requirements elsewhere in the Bill. For the functions of the commissioner to be carried out effectively, including supervising the assisted dying panels and making annual reports on the legislation’s operation, it is essential that all relevant details and reports are made available.

I am unable to support amendment 457, in the name of the hon. Member for Richmond Park. As I said when we started discussing the amendment, I do not fully understand why it has been positioned at this stage in the process. The shorter period of reflection is a recognition that a person’s death is expected within a month, so they literally have a few weeks left of life.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

That was the hon. Member’s response when I made my speech on the amendment in the previous sitting. I have reflected on that over the weekend. I still think that the issue of the voluntary stopping of eating and drinking is a very serious one that ought to be reflected somewhere in the legislation, but she is correct that, at this particular point, we are talking about the second period of reflection already being at an end, so it cannot be hastened in any way by such a measure. Therefore, I will be withdrawing the amendment.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I appreciate that; that is helpful and I thank the hon. Member. As the Minister said, a person whose death is approaching may have stopped eating and drinking for a number of reasons. They may simply be too ill. They may be unable to digest food. It may be that they have lost their appetite, or that they will be even more ill if they eat and drink, so it would seem particularly cruel to intervene on that basis at that point, but I appreciate her comments.

Amendment 316 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central seeks to mandate the action a doctor must take if a patient is likely to die within one month. Like other amendments, it goes against the basic principles that underlie the Bill—that the wishes of the person seeking assistance should be respected. Surely that is even more important than ever as they face their final weeks. As the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said, palliative care will have been discussed at length throughout the assisted dying process. It is also worth noting, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said, that evidence from other jurisdictions with similar laws—Australia and America—shows that between 80% and 90% of people who have gone through the assisted dying process are already receiving palliative care, so I am not minded to support the amendment.

[Sarah Olney]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 207, in clause 13, page 9, line 20, leave out “Schedule 4” and insert

“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

This amendment provides that the form of a second declaration is to be set out in regulations (rather than in Schedule 4).

Amendment 470, in clause 13, page 9, line 26, at end insert—

“(3A) Regulations under subsection (3)(a) must provide that a second declaration contains—

(a) the following information—

(i) the person’s full name and address;

(ii) the person’s NHS number;

(iii) contact details for the person’s GP practice;

(iv) specified information about the certificate of eligibility;

(b) the following further declarations by the person—

(i) a declaration that they have made a first declaration and have not cancelled it;

(ii) a declaration that they understand that they must make a second declaration in order for assistance to be provided under this Act;

(iii) a declaration that they are making the second declaration voluntarily and have not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it;

(iv) a declaration that they understand that they may cancel the second declaration at any time.

In this subsection “specified” means specified in the regulations.”

This amendment provides that regulations about the form of a second declaration must make the provision mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).

Amendment 471, in clause 13, page 9, line 27, leave out from “if” to “that” in line 28 and insert

“the coordinating doctor is satisfied (immediately before witnessing it)”.

This amendment removes wording which would suggest that a second declaration is made before it is witnessed.

Amendment 208, in clause 13, page 9, line 38, leave out “Schedule 5” and insert

“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

This amendment provides that the form of a statement by the coordinating doctor following the making of the second declaration is to be set out in regulations (rather than in Schedule 5).

Amendment 472, in clause 13, page 9, line 41, at end insert—

“(6A) Regulations under subsection (6)(a) must provide that a statement under subsection (5) contains—

(a) the following information—

(i) the person’s full name and address;

(ii) the person’s NHS number;

(iii) the coordinating doctor’s full name and work address;

(iv) specified information about the certificate of eligibility;

(b) the following declarations by the coordinating doctor (in addition to a declaration that they are satisfied of all of the matters mentioned in subsection (4)(a) to (d))—

(i) a declaration that they are satisfied that a certificate of eligibility has been granted in respect of the person;

(ii) a declaration that the second declaration was made after the end of the second period for reflection;

(iii) if the second declaration was made before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (2)(a), a declaration that they have the belief mentioned in subsection (2)(b);

(iv) a declaration that they are satisfied that neither the first declaration nor the second declaration has been cancelled.

In this subsection “specified” means specified in the regulations.”

This amendment provides that regulations about the form of a statement under subsection (5) must make the provision mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).

Amendment 374, in clause 13, page 10, line 2, at end insert—

“(8) Where the coordinating doctor has—

(a) witnessed a second declaration, or

(b) made or refused to make a statement under subsection (5),

the doctor must notify the Commissioner and give them a copy of the second declaration or (as the case may be) any statement under subsection (5).”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment requires the coordinating doctor to notify the Commissioner of witnessing a second declaration, and of having made or refused to make a statement under clause 13(5).

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Cancellation of declarations

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 375, in clause 14, page 10, line 9, at end insert—

“(1A) Where notice or an indication is given to the coordinating doctor under subsection (1)(a), the doctor must as soon as practicable notify the Commissioner of the cancellation.”

This amendment requires the coordinating doctor to notify the Commissioner of a cancellation of a first or second declaration.

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

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I will speak to amendments 429 and 430 in my name. During oral evidence, we discussed the issues in subsections (9) and (10) of clause 18 and whether there is a contradiction. Subsection (9) states that the co-ordinating doctor

“must remain with the person”

and subsection (10) says:

“For the purposes of subsection (9), the coordinating doctor need not be in the same room as the person”.

We also discussed how that works in other jurisdictions. My amendment 429 would deal with that conflict. If the Bill were to become law, that conflict could be queried.

We also need to consider the possibility of complications. Clearly, if there are complications and the doctor is not in the same room, they would not necessarily be aware of those complications. I accept that, in some normal circumstances, doctors and medical professionals are not present in the room at the time of death; at other times, they are present. The amendment would mean that if something were to go wrong and someone was having a painful reaction to the drugs, the doctor would be there to see and help.

I do not understand what the Bill means when it says the doctor does not have to be in the same room. How far away would the doctor have to be? One subsection says the doctor has to remain with the person, and the following subsection says they do not have to be in the same room. If the Bill were to pass, we would be asking doctors to do something that is unprecedented. If the person were to suffer complications such as seizures or vomiting, or if they were exhibiting signs of distress, it appears that the doctor should be present. Members may think this could encroach on a patient’s privacy, but I think there is a discrepancy between the two subsections.

On amendment 430, I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich has tabled a similar amendment. The intention of my amendment is to ensure there are regulations in responding to any unexpected complications that arise in relation to the administration of the approved substance, including when the procedure fails. I am conscious that if a doctor intervenes, they could end up in breach of the Suicide Act 1961. I therefore left the wording in that vein, as I understand that we will receive more information in due course.

Again, we received oral evidence from a number of people that what a doctor is meant to do in the event of unexpected complications is a matter of concern from both a legal and a medical perspective. We know from the evidence received from other jurisdictions that—I accept in a small minority of cases—there can be complications or the death can take much longer than expected. We also received evidence that, on rare occasions, death can take days.

Amendment 430 would show we have thought about those circumstances and provided for them by giving doctors a code of practice to refer to, rather than being left in the dark if a difficult situation arises at the time of death. We must not find ourselves in a circumstance in which doctors and patients are unprepared. It is important for us to think through, provide for and safeguard against all possible scenarios, however rare they might be. Of course, we would not want them to happen, but in some circumstances they might, and we would not want there to be a legal hole. Accepting the amendment would mean the Secretary of State has the opportunity to provide a code of practice for such circumstances. I hope hon. Members will be able to support the amendments in my name.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I support amendment 429, tabled by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford.

I do not understand how subsection (9) can require the doctor to remain with the person until they have self-administered and died, or until they have decided not to self-administer, while subsection (10) states that the doctor need not be in the same room. The Bill becomes even less coherent when we consider subsection (11), which requires the doctor to remove the substance immediately if the person decides not to self-administer—how can the doctor do so if they are not in the same room? Amendment 429 would make the scheme more coherent and I support it for that reason.

I accept that there are downsides to having the doctor present, especially before the administration, as people have a normal desire for privacy, but that needs to be balanced against the risk of someone else taking the substance or something going wrong in the process of self-administration. In Australia, there is no requirement for the doctor to be present, which has led to some cases of abuse. I understand why the Bill’s promoter has chosen not to go down the Australian route, but the position arrived at in subsection (10) lacks coherence and is unclear.

What does it mean to remain with the person without being in the same room? Does it mean being in the corridor just outside the room, but with the door open? What if it is closed? What if, as a result of the door being closed, the doctor is no longer within earshot? I am not the only one who is confused, as so are the doctors who will have to apply the legislation. For example, Dr Janet Menage, a retired GP, told us in written evidence—TIAB 182—that the provisions

“are mutually exclusive: doctor ‘must remain with the patient’ but ‘not in the same room’…This makes no sense. In any case, if the attending doctor is not in the same room there could potentially be an intervention by another person to the patient’s detriment. Or the patient may wish to cancel the suicide at the last moment and be unsupported in voicing that decision.”

With or without subsection (10), I would like to know whether the Minister has made an assessment of the workforce impact of such a requirement for the doctor to be present. As Dr Rebecca Jones told us:

“As the death may take many hours, I’m uncertain of the practicalities of this”.

[Sean Woodcock]

The hon. Lady is making an important point about the lack of coherence that amendment 429 is trying to sort out. Throughout these weeks of debate in Committee, we have heard about the importance of clarity for practitioners. This provision introduces severe doubt as to exactly what a practitioner is meant to do. I understand that we do not want to say, “You have to do this and this, and in this order”, and that amendments have been rejected on that basis, but this clause opens a massive loophole in the law and practice, which concerns me. Does the hon. Lady share my concern?

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is fundamental that, with this legislation, we provide very clear guidance to the medical practitioners who will be engaged in assisting patients with this matter. This is not only for their peace of mind that what they are doing is acceptable under the law, and accords with what Parliament has decided, but for the protection of patients. It is incumbent on us to be really clear about what we mean, and I do not believe we are as the Bill is currently drafted.

[Sojan Joseph]

We repeatedly talk about doctors, but nurses, healthcare assistants and other professionals will definitely be involved in a hospital environment. The Bill does not talk about other professionals. Furthermore, within a hospital environment, NHS wards may be bays without individual bedrooms. Does the hon. Lady think we need to be clearer on the procedures that will happen in those areas?

[Sarah Olney]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s professional experience, which is extremely helpful. He is absolutely right. Following the point made by the hon. Member for Banbury, we cannot define the circumstances in which a patient will find themselves when this is taking place. That is why it is incumbent on us to make sure we provide very clear guidance on precisely what Parliament intends.

As Dr Rebecca Jones told us in written evidence:

“As the death may take many hours, I’m uncertain of the practicalities of”

doctors remaining with the patient

“for many doctors…have competing demands on their time.”

In written evidence, Dr Chris Ainsworth asked how this will work in cases where death takes several days, as has happened in Oregon, while Dr Trevor Stammers wrote:

“If the doctor is required to be present until the patient’s death, this may require hours of practitioners’ time to fulfil and is unlikely to be adhered to in many cases if the dying process is protracted.”

Dr Rachel Fisher said in her written evidence that for Australian doctors, who are not required to be present at the final act, each assisted death requires around 60 hours of professional time. For British doctors, we will need to add the time it takes for the self-administration to result in death. Dr Fisher also raised the real impact on doctors, writing,

“imagine the practicalities of those who must deliver it. The GP, motivated by a deep desire to preserve life and relieve suffering arrives at the home of the patient with a cocktail of powerful drugs. What if the patient has symptoms? Who will collect their child from nursery or school if the patient takes a long time to die? How will they know when to decide the death was unsuccessful? Will there be counselling for GPs observing and feeling complicit in a potentially drawn out and symptomatic death?”

Finally, Dr Paul Shaw asked in his written evidence:

“How will this service be funded? What support will be required from the NHS when things go wrong or death takes longer than expected? Will this be a 0900-1700hrs service? What will be the out of hours arrangements?”

A lot of the written evidence touches on the practicalities of a doctor being required to remain with the patient until they die. Amendment 429, in the name of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, seeks to clarify whether “being with the patient” requires the doctor to be physically present in the room.

[Dr Opher]

I understand that hon. Members are coming from a good place, but I do not understand how amendment 429 would stop the doctor having to stay with the patient until they die. I agree that it is an important issue, so could the hon. Lady elucidate on that?

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to conclude my remarks. I support amendment 429 because it is important to provide clarity that when we say “with the patient,” we mean in the room. However, I invite the Minister to expand further on the resource requirement of assisted dying. I want the doctor to remain with the patient, which I think is critical. That is why I support amendment 429, but the implication of the Bill is a considerable resource requirement, particularly for GPs, and I would like the Minister to respond to that.

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

I rise to speak to amendments 532 and 533, standing in my name, and in support of amendments 429 and 430, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. I appreciate that my amendments are similar to amendment 430. They go a little bit further, but probably not as far as we have previously discussed in the Committee.

I totally understand the concerns about the Bill being overly prescriptive about the regulations that could be passed down to the doctors making such decisions. However, it is important that we enable the Secretary of State to provide guidance, in addition to GMC regulations, on what the co-ordinating doctor must do if the procedure has failed. At the moment, the Bill simply states:

“The coordinating doctor must remain with the person until”

that time. However, I appreciate that amendment 429, if passed, would cover that issue.

Clause 9 states:

“The assessing doctor must…discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance under section 18”.

However, the Bill as drafted is not clear about what a doctor is legally permitted to do in the event of such complications. That is particularly important, as the Bill expressly states that the final act of administration must be taken by the person themselves. Therefore, the Bill as it stands stipulates that the doctor must discuss the patient’s wishes in the event of complications without stipulating what actions the doctor can take in such an event and thus what the patient’s options actually are.

There is a gap in the Bill and a lack of clarity on that critical issue, which has been raised frequently in both written and, to an extent, oral evidence. Dr Alexandra Mullock argued that, as

“the Bill would only permit”

a doctor only to assist in the patient’s self-administering a substance,

“administering drugs to end the life of a patient who might be unconscious (but not dying) is not permitted.”

She also raised the possibility that a patient might regain consciousness, but

“be too ill to make a second attempt”

at self-administration. What should a doctor do if that occurs? Unless the Secretary of State clarifies what a doctor can do in that situation—my amendment would not do that; it would merely give the Secretary of State direction to do so—the co-ordinating director could be placed in a difficult position.

Professor Alex Ruck Keene argued that the Bill as it stands could lead to the potential for medical professionals to be “required to stand by”, yet without being able to take steps to respond to complications so as to ensure that the process is completed. I fully appreciate that all doctors would use their good training, common sense and years of extensive practice to make a best-case judgment, and we would always support them in that, but the Bill has the unintended consequence of not giving doctors true cover in that area.

Dr Mullock also asked what should occur if the patient survives a procedure, “but is badly affected”. What treatment should be provided? Should the patient be moved to hospital? Should the patient be sedated or made comfortable until a natural death occurs, or should the doctor be able to take steps for the patient to die following the initial failed attempt? We need answers to those questions. Amendment 532 does not seek to answer them, but it would stipulate that the Secretary of State must do so at a certain point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

To me, amendment 430, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, strikes the right balance. Under clause 30 the Secretary of State “may” make provision for codes of practice on these matters if that is required; I am uncomfortable with saying that the Secretary of State “must” do so, when it is likely that it will be more appropriate for the GMC or some other body to make those regulations. We get into a difficult precedent if the Secretary of State must specify the reaction in certain medical circumstances but we routinely leave that to medical regulation and practice more widely. I think a “may” power, as set out in amendment 430, would allow that backstop provision, but would not get into the issue of “must”. It is also likely to be more respectful of the conversations as outlined in clause 9.

[Sarah Olney]

I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and a lot of what he is talking about in terms of giving doctors discretion makes a lot of sense in a routine medical intervention, but this is not a routine medical intervention. This is a very serious point, and the doctor’s judgment in this case could well fall either side of what is permissible by the law. That is why it is so important that it is really clear. Whether we decide in Committee that it must be on the face of the Bill, or whether we want, as per the hon. Member for Ipswich’s amendment 532, to leave it to the Secretary of State, it must be clear and specific.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I think the Bill is very clear on the legal parameters. A doctor may not act, in terms of administering the substance, in a way to hasten death. Within that, we are back into the realms of normal medical practice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud set out. I am sure that there will be legal guidance, whether that be from the GMC or elsewhere, if and when the Bill were to pass. The Secretary of State would have the powers anyway under clause 30, but for the avoidance of doubt, amendment 430 strikes the right balance in giving backstop permissions to the Secretary of State to clarify anything if needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

I disagree. As clause 9 makes clear, the doctor will have had a conversation with the patient about their wishes in advance, in exactly the same way as a surgeon would have a conversation with a patient in advance of high-risk surgery—

[Sarah Olney]

rose—

[Lewis Atkinson]

I am not going to take any further interventions; I am going to answer this point and make some progress.

The surgeon would say, “If this procedure fails, would you wish me to attempt resuscitation? Would you wish to be put on a support system?” The hon. Gentleman misunderstands current practice on consultation with patients, in advance of procedures, about their wishes, which is where there is significant established evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I hope the Minister can answer a question for me. I hear what he is saying about concerns with the amendments themselves, which makes a lot of sense, and the policy objectives of the hon. Member for Spen Valley. What I am concerned about is that in the Bill as drafted, notwithstanding that various amendments have been tabled, it is not clear what the doctor should do in the event of complications. There may well have been an earlier conversation with the patient, but the patient’s request may still leave the doctor in the position of committing a criminal offence.

I would like to know whose responsibility it is to ensure that doctors are not left in that position, which could come about either because the Bill as drafted is not clear or the amendments do not make the appropriate clarification. The hon. Member for Spen Valley has done a marvellous job, but in terms of policy intention the Bill does not cover this aspect. The Minister is saying that it is his job only to ensure that the amendments are appropriate. I am still very concerned that there is a big gap here and that we are potentially leaving doctors in the very difficult position of not knowing whether or not carrying out the patient’s intentions would leave them in the position of breaking the law. I would like to know whose responsibility it is to ensure that doctors are not left in that situation.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Lady will know that we rely on medical practitioners to make professional judgments all the time. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has set out the range of things that medical practitioners can do when they are dealing with end-of-life care. That happens all the time.

In these circumstances, it is the view of the Government that we should continue to rely on the skill, judgment and expertise of medical practitioners, underpinned by the various codes of practice—the GMC, or good medical practice, being probably the most obvious one. There is an understandable desire to use primary legislation to address issues of this kind, but it is important to point out that that could prove to be counterproductive and that we could end up with a Bill that becomes less workable and therefore potentially less safe—what one might call the law of unintended consequences.

[Sarah Olney]

The Minister is talking about somebody making a medical judgment, which would obviously be the right thing to do in the normal course of events, but we are talking about a doctor being left in a position of not knowing whether to take a further step that would end somebody’s life or to take the step that would be natural for a doctor—to try to revive the patient. This is about what the legal position is in that case—it is not a matter for medical judgment.

[Stephen Kinnock]

My response would be to refer the hon. Lady to clause 30(1), which sets out that the Secretary of State will produce a code of practice. Amendment 430, which my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has said she is minded to support, would also ensure that the code of practice includes guidance on the matter that the hon. Lady raises. I think there is a commitment to a code of practice, and if amendment 430 passes then it would be explicitly in the Bill that that code of practice should include the issue that she raises.

Amendment 533 places a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying where the provision of assistance under the Bill may take place. It sets out a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate prior to making such regulations, including certain specified groups.

Amendment 430 would broaden the Secretary of State’s power to issue codes of practice under clause 30. It would explicitly enable the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice in connection with responding to unexpected complications that arise in relation to the administration of the approved substance under section 18, including when the procedure fails.

I understand that amendment 255 is no longer relevant as it relates to schedule 6, which is going to be changed—I think that is right—so, in that sense, the amendment is null and void. I hope that those observations were helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I was under the impression that cold concentrated the mind, but we will see what we can do. I speak as one who will not be in the room. The point has been taken.

Clause 19

Authorising another doctor to provide assistance

[Sarah Olney]

I beg to move amendment 408, in clause 19, page 13, line 18, after “provided” insert “has been consulted and”.

The amendment ensures the person has been consulted before they have given consent for another medical practitioner to be authorised to provide assistance.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 210, in clause 19, page 13, line 22, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2)(b) may in particular provide that the required training, qualifications or experience is to be determined by a person specified in the regulations.”.

This amendment enables regulations under subsection (2)(b) to provide that the required training, qualifications or experience is to be determined by a person specified in the regulations.

Amendment 499, in clause 19, page 13, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) Where a registered medical practitioner who is authorised under subsection (1) is not satisfied of all of the matters mentioned in section 18(4), they must notify the coordinating doctor immediately.”

This amendment provides that where a practitioner authorised under clause 19(1) is not satisfied of all of the matters mentioned in clause 18(4), they must immediately notify the coordinating doctor.

Amendment 22, in clause 19, page 13, line 32, at end insert—

“(5A) Regulations under subsection (2)(b) must specify that training in respect of domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse is mandatory.”

This amendment would require that, in the event of the coordinating doctor authorising another registered medical practitioner to provide assistance under the Act, that other registered medical practitioner must also have undertaken training on domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse.

Clause stand part.

[Sarah Olney]

Amendment 408 seeks clarity on a critical aspect of the legislation. Clause 19 allows a co-ordinating doctor to authorise another registered medical practitioner to carry out their functions, providing that the patient consents and that the replacement has completed training, qualifications and experience as specified by the Secretary of State. This is a facilitation clause to smooth the process, and in some cases it might seem like something that we should just nod through. If the co-ordinating doctor becomes unwell, takes leave or faces an emergency that prevents them from fulfilling their duties, they might delegate to ensure continuity of care for the patient. If the patient relocates, perhaps to be closer to family, or if the co-ordinating doctor cannot travel to the patient’s location due to the distance or logistics, a local practitioner could be authorised to step in, provided they meet the specified requirements and the patient consents.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

It was something else you were pre-empting yourself with—that is fine. I call Sarah Olney.

[Sarah Olney]

I have nothing to add.

Amendment 408 agreed to.

Amendments made: 210, in clause 19, page 13, line 22, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2)(b) may in particular provide that the required training, qualifications or experience is to be determined by a person specified in the regulations.”

This amendment enables regulations under subsection (2)(b) to provide that the required training, qualifications or experience is to be determined by a person specified in the regulations.

Amendment 499, in clause 19, page 13, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) Where a registered medical practitioner who is authorised under subsection (1) is not satisfied of all of the matters mentioned in section 18(4), they must notify the coordinating doctor immediately.”

This amendment provides that where a practitioner authorised under clause 19(1) is not satisfied of all of the matters mentioned in clause 18(4), they must immediately notify the coordinating doctor.

Amendment 211, in clause 19, page 13, line 31, leave out subsection (5).—(Kim Leadbeater.)

See the statement for Amendment 187.

Amendment made: 22, in clause 19, page 13, line 32, at end insert—

“(5A) Regulations under subsection (2)(b) must specify that training in respect of domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse is mandatory.”—(Naz Shah.)

This amendment would require that, in the event of the coordinating doctor authorising another registered medical practitioner to provide assistance under the Act, that other registered medical practitioner must also have undertaken training on domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse.

Amendment made: 212, in clause 19, page 13, line 33, leave out subsection (6).—(Kim Leadbeater.)

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Meaning of “approved substance”

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to move amendment 409, in clause 20, page 13, line 35, leave out from “specify” to “for” and insert—

“two or more drugs or other substances with different techniques of administration”.

The amendment requires that the Secretary of State specifies two or more drugs or other substances, which have different techniques of administration.