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.

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 (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 (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 (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.

Health and Social Care: Winter Update

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. May I, through her, thank health and care staff in her city for the work they are doing to get the people of Birmingham through this particularly challenging winter? What we really need to do to make our health and care system more effective and more sustainable is shift the centre of gravity out of hospital and into the community. We need better and faster access to diagnostics and treatment, as well as a bigger focus on prevention—primary prevention to keep us all healthy and active, and secondary prevention so that fewer people need to call on health services, and particularly emergency departments, which are stretched at this time of year.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I was pleased to hear what the Secretary of State said about vaccine roll-out, particularly of the RSV vaccine. I am even more pleased that my constituents in Richmond Park are diligent in taking up all vaccines, but they have been puzzled to find that the RSV vaccine is limited to those between 75 and 79 years of age. What plans are there are to extend the roll-out to those aged 80 and above?

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for her question and for showing off her constituents’ uptake—that is exactly what we want. Perhaps ahead of next winter, we should launch a parliamentary competition: who can boost uptake most in their constituencies? We will think about the prize.

More seriously, I am always glad when the pressure is to expand access to vaccines—that is exactly the sort of pressure that we want. We follow advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. We will review the experience this winter, and the JCVI will review evidence and data this winter and make recommendations, which we will take into account.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)]

The UK rare diseases framework aims to improve the lives of people living with all rare diseases. I am more than prepared to meet my hon. Friend to look at the adequacy of support available to people with Usher syndrome.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

T8. Last Friday, I met GPs at the Fairhill medical practice in north Kingston in my constituency. They have told me that the increase in national insurance contributions will add £50,000 a year to their costs. Can the Secretary of State tell me whether GPs can expect to see an across-the-board cut in the NICs payable by GPs to help them manage to continue delivering services for families in the area?

[Wes Streeting]

We have not yet announced allocations for general practice for the year ahead, and we are taking into account all the pressures that general practice is under.

Government Policy on Health

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson, Sarah Olney.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats find it deeply ironic that the shadow Health Secretary has raised this question on the involvement of people with no formal appointment in the development of Government policy. Are they forgetting their record in government? Perhaps we should remind everyone that, under the Conservatives, it was their friends that benefited from large contracts to supply the Government during the covid pandemic. The result is that, just today, as the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) has already highlighted, Transparency International UK has revealed multiple red flags in more than 130 covid contracts totalling over £15.3 billion. With the Conservatives out of power, we have the opportunity to clean up our politics, so will the Secretary of State update the House on whether the Prime Minister plans to appoint his own ethics adviser or whether Sir Laurie Magnus will remain in the post? Will the ethics adviser be empowered to initiate their own investigations and publish their own reports?

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for her serious contribution. She is right to say that transparency matters. That is why meetings in my Department, and their attendees, will be published in the right and proper way on a quarterly basis.

It is also right to draw a distinction between those areas of business and meetings in the Department that are about generating ideas and policy discussion, and those that are about taking Government decisions. It is right that people from outside government come into the Department for Health and Social Care, or any Department, to lend their expertise and share their views, and it is right that Ministers make decisions absent of those outsiders. That is the distinction I would draw. The hon. Member raises a specific point about the Prime Minister’s ethics adviser. This is a Prime Minister who does take ethics seriously and will not behave in the way that his Conservative predecessors did. As for individuals, that is a decision for the Prime Minister, but I will ensure that the hon. Member gets a more fulsome reply.

Children’s Cancer Care: South-East

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Thank you very much for giving me time to speak; I will not detain hon. Members long.

I congratulate my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing this important and extremely timely debate. As she has already highlighted, the Evelina is an excellent facility and I commend the incredible work its doctors do every day. I do, however, share her view that the weight of evidence shows that St George’s Hospital would be a better home for paediatric cancer care in south London and the surrounding counties. I had an excellent experience of in-patient paediatric care there when my daughter was in the Frederick Hewitt Ward for a short period last year. I can confirm that the paediatric care there is excellent, and I would like to say to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) that I had no problems with parking any of the times I visited my daughter.

One of the less well-known but most dangerous side effects of cancer treatment is the extreme increase in patients’ susceptibility to bacterial and viral infections. While most children with cancer are able to overcome minor infections, the mortality rate from infection is three times higher in cancer patients than in the general public. Because of that risk, many children living with cancer cannot take public transport or even smaller private hire vehicles. In the most extreme cases, visitors and carers are expected to shield so that they do not bring a risk of infection. Travelling by car is the only option available to many of these young people and their families. As such, any plan to bring paediatric cancer treatment in south London and the surrounding counties under one roof must ensure that certain patients can access the hospital safely.

The point was driven home to me when one of my constituents contacted my office after her daughter was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. During the six months that her daughter received chemotherapy and radiotherapy at University College Hospital, they had to travel from Richmond to the hospital in Euston several times a week for her to receive treatment. Due to the very limited parking at the hospital, and the need to avoid public transport because of the risk of infection, the family were forced to hire taxis to make the journey. Each round trip cost the family close to £100. That is not a unique situation.

On average, the families of children with cancer have to spend £250 and travel 350 miles each month to get their specialist treatment. Three in four struggle to meet those costs, and one in 10 miss or delay their treatment because of the expense. St George’s Hospital has two visitor car parks, and it has presented a plan to create a series of dedicated parking spaces and drop-off zones for the families of children with cancer. [Interruption.]

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

I call Sarah Olney, a few minutes early.

[Sarah Olney]

Thank you, Sir Christopher. I was on the verge of taking an intervention.

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Lady was talking about transport. Yes, the Evelina has amazing facilities, and parents can stay in Ronald McDonald House just opposite. However, the point is that it is easier to get to Tooting by car none the less, especially for people coming from outside London. Patient transport to the Evelina from Brighton takes more time to get into London from the outskirts than from Brighton to the outskirts of London in the first place.

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) gets a new “A to Z”; the journey is not that much more difficult.

[Sarah Olney]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but my personal experience is that it is a lot easier to get from anywhere in the surrounding counties to the outskirts of London than from the outskirts of London to central London.

As I was saying, the Evelina’s parking facilities are, in the hospital’s own words, “very limited”. Patients are advised that there is often a queue for parking, which of course can only add to the stress of parents trying to get their children into hospital for urgent treatment. Given that the Evelina sits in central London just over the river from here, I am concerned about its ability to significantly expand parking provision.

The Evelina also sits within the congestion charge zone, meaning that any family member who wishes to visit an in-patient will be charged between £15 and £17.50 every time they come to the hospital. I acknowledge that TfL will reimburse the cost to patients with compromised immune systems, for families visiting on a regular basis who are not covered by the exemption, the expense could become significant; there is also a significant additional administrative burden for those families.

Admission to hospital can be a terrifying prospect for a young person. Parents often take shifts, keeping their child company during an unimaginably difficult time. If each day they drive to and from the ward, they could end up paying more than £100 a week in congestion charges alone. The NHS was founded on the principle that everybody should have easy access to life-saving medical treatment, regardless of their economic circumstances. I believe that St George’s meets that criterion in a way that the Evelina simply cannot. Both are world-class hospitals and both teams provide an excellent standard of care, but St George’s offers both parents and children a solution that truly meets their needs.