Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lizzi Collinge]

I am mindful of time, so I will continue.

Why, then, would we now choose, as a House, to hide from patients information about their options? For so many years, people have been put through that. Informed consent to treatment, including end of life care, is informed only when it includes all options. There is also the practical element of what would count as a patient raising it first. Would they have to make a specific statement? Would they have to use specific language? It would create a legal and medical minefield for doctors and patients.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I am very mindful of time, so I will finish with this point. Colleagues may wish to look at the NHS constitution, which says:

“You have the right to be involved in planning and making decisions about your health and care with your care provider or providers, including your end of life care, and to be given information and support to enable you to do this.”

That can be the case only if people are given the full information. All people should have access to full information on matters of care. To do otherwise is to deny people their decision—it is paternalistic, and we should move away from that model. People have fought so hard for that to happen.

We have a chance today, colleagues, to ensure that the legislation is the best it can be. It has been a pleasure to listen to the contributions of colleagues across the Chamber. I am minded to support the amended Bill on Third Reading, because the current situation for terminally ill people, with no safeguards, no protection and no choice, is absolutely unsupportable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

I am sorry, I cannot give way. I am just going to go through these points very quickly.

That is why the BMA is against new clause 1. There is no duty for doctors to raise the issue, but there should not be any ban on them doing so. As I have pointed out, the so-called gagging clause was introduced in Victoria as part of the legislation. However, after five years that has now been removed by an independent review, because it caused confusion and it harmed patient care. I urge colleagues to vote against new clause 1. Let us respect the patient’s right to information, not restrict it. Let us ensure that no patient is left suffering simply because they did not know what to ask, and that no doctor is punished for trying to help.

[Sarah Russell]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. On that point, I have particular concerns—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. May I just clarify whether the hon. Gentleman was giving way?

[Dr Opher]

Yes, I am happy to give way.

[Sarah Russell]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On that point, does my hon. Friend agree with my concerns about new clause 2, which, although genuinely meant and intended, is in danger of being read, together with new clause 1, to indicate that it should not be discussed with children at all, even if they raised it first, because of the difference between the wording of the two clauses?

[Dr Opher]

Any restrictions around the doctor-patient relationship will harm patients, so I agree with my hon. Friend.