Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateSarah Olney
Main Page: Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat - Richmond Park)Department Debates - View all Sarah Olney's debates with the Ministry of Justice
(2 days, 23 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesNo. 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.
Q
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.
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.
Q
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”.
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.
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?
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.