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

Debate between Sean Woodcock and Neil Shastri-Hurst
Neil Shastri-Hurst Portrait Dr Shastri-Hurst
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend makes incisive points clearly and concisely, as always, but I cannot agree. This is a short clause that is dealing with a hugely complicated issue that is presently codified within the Mental Capacity Act, which runs to some 183 pages. I do not think that it is as simple as saying that the new clause deals with the issue.

There is also the two-stage test, which determines both the functional ability to make the decision and whether that decision is impaired in any way. It would be an oversimplification to suggest that the provision as drafted would deal with those issues in a satisfactory way that would provide confidence not only—although most importantly—to those who are making a decision around an assisted death, but to the medical practitioners who are part of the process and the courts, which will have to grapple with the issues that will inevitably arise from a new definition.

Sean Woodcock Portrait Sean Woodcock
- Hansard - -

The Royal College of Psychiatrists highlights that a person’s capacity can change and is decision-specific. It therefore says that the Mental Capacity Act is not suitable for the Bill. What is the hon. Member’s response?