Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Simon Opher Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I am one of those medical practitioners, sometimes known as a doctor. I have been a GP for 30 years, and every year I look after four or five cases related to palliative and terminal care, so I have a lot of experience in this area.

I would like to make some quick observations. First, a lot of patients who are dying of cancer ask whether we can curtail their life and finish it a bit early. That is a very common thing that they ask. I have had two patients go to Dignitas on their own, without family members, because the family members were fearful that they would be arrested on their return. We have been discussing giving a double dose of morphine. I think that almost all doctors in terminal care have probably done this—doubled the dose of morphine knowing that it might curtail the patient’s life. That is a big fudge. It puts me in a very vulnerable position. We need to resolve that.

I think we are getting a bit confused between palliative care and assisted dying. A lot of people who receive excellent palliative care still request assisted dying. They are not mutually exclusive. I totally support what everyone is saying about developing palliative care, because that is really important, but that should not go instead of assisted dying. The things go together. Assisted dying is one of our tools in palliative care, as I see it going into the future.

I have a couple of points about coercion, which people like me need to assess. If someone says that they feel like a burden, that is immediately not a good reason to approve assisted dying. Doctors are trained in assessing capacity, as has been said, but we are also trained in trying to find out the reasons someone wants to end their life. I think it is judging doctors harshly to say that they will not spot coercion. Interestingly, the only change in Australia was that they found that the judiciary review did not add much to the process. Otherwise, there does not seem to be a slippery slope, as long as the legislation is carefully done.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

The hon. Member opened by referring to himself as a doctor and medical practitioner. Perhaps he could help with the difficulty I have with the Bill, which I would dearly like to support. There are provisions in it that allow the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations so that the independent doctor can be an alternative medical practitioner. There is also a section that makes the court look like an optional process, so I do worry that there are not protections in the Bill for two doctors. Perhaps he could help with that.

[Dr Opher]

I do think it is right for this Bill to require two doctors and a judiciary review, because this is new legislation and we must be sure that it is safe. These safeguards are incredibly important.

I will finish simply by saying that having been a doctor all my life, I have tried to empower patients to make their own decisions over their healthcare, and this is a great opportunity to do that. I had one patient who had a terminal diagnosis and hanged himself. The family were devastated. It was a horrible way to die. I felt that we had failed as a medical profession. Let us not fail as a Government, a judiciary and the Houses of Parliament. Please support the Bill.

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

Simon Opher Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I look forward very much to the process of this Committee and to working with hon. Members to do what we can to ensure that a good Bill is presented back to the House.

I very much respect the points made by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. Nevertheless, I do have some real objections to the motion, which I encourage Members to oppose. The fact is that this debate was due to be held in public—in fact, people have travelled here in the expectation that they would be able to attend and observe our debate on the sittings motion—but last night, for reasons we do not fully understand, a decision was clearly made to table a motion that we sit in private. I would be grateful to understand why that decision was made so late.

My general point is that there is a clear public interest case. The public should understand why witnesses have been chosen and why other people have not, and if there are concerns about the witnesses, they should be aired publicly. This is the only time that the public are being consulted—that experts from outside Parliament have a chance to contribute to our deliberations. I fail to understand why those discussions cannot be held in public. The only argument that I can imagine—and the hon. Member for Spen Valley made it—is that Members might for some reason be uncivil or speak disrespectfully about potential witnesses, which I do not for a moment believe. I am sure that you, Sir Roger, or the other Chairs will keep us in order throughout our proceedings.

We are here to talk about the overall balance and particular qualifications of the witness list. Looking at the witness list that was presented this morning by the hon. Lady, I have very serious concerns, which should be aired publicly, about the list. It includes eight witnesses from foreign jurisdictions, who are being called to give evidence from abroad; all are supporters of assisted dying in their jurisdictions. There are no people speaking against the operations of assisted dying laws internationally. There are nine lawyers on the list—all of them, with the exception of three who appear to be neutral, in favour of a change in the law. There is not a single lawyer against this Bill. Sir James Munby was suggested, but I understand he has been removed. There might be a perfectly good reason for that, but he has spoken against the Bill.

There is nobody on the list from deaf or disabled people’s organisations, but the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities recognises the importance of engaging with such organisations in laws of this nature. With the exception of Dr Jamilla Hussain, there is no one on the witness list who can speak to the equality impacts of assisted dying.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

rose—

[The Chair]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, and indeed all members of the Committee, received the final version of these documents fairly late in the day, and I am not unsympathetic to hearing what any Member wishes to say, but now the hon. Gentleman is going rather further down the brief than he is probably entitled to. The motion on the amendment paper is very narrow. The Question is, quite simply, that the Committee should sit in private.

--- Later in debate ---

I am suggesting very minor changes; I am surprised that they should be unacceptable to the Committee. I suggest substituting a small number—two or three—of the witnesses that are being proposed from those foreign countries in favour of others, equally qualified, who take a different view of the legislation. I hope that the Committee will consider accepting some of that.

[Dr Opher]

The Bill as proposed is extremely similar to the Australian law, but it is not similar to Canadian law. Therefore, I do not see that bringing Canadian expertise into the Committee is of any use at all. I also back the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire when he said that in almost all situations we are just replacing one expert for another, so the only contentious bit is whether we have people from Australia in support of or against assisted dying.

A split of 38 to 20, with the other witnesses being neutral, is appropriate and actually reflects the vote in the House. I do not see that as a disadvantage. Are the witnesses really going to change what we are saying? We need to listen to them and learn from them, but having some of them against assisted dying is enough to give us due discipline and ensure we listen to exactly what the problems might be, so I disagree with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire.

[Danny Kruger]

Very quickly, let me say that 38 to 20—two to one—was not the split that happened on Second Reading. There was a much more finely balanced position in the House. I accept that the hon. Gentleman does not want to hear from Canada and I do not blame him—people who are in favour of the Bill are desperate to keep Canada out of it. Okay—let us look at Australia. There are many people in Australia—MPs included, if we could hear from politicians—who continue to profoundly oppose the Bill on the grounds that it is not working, it is dangerous and it is being expanded. Let us hear some alternative views if we are interested in foreign experience.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money)

Simon Opher Excerpts

Money resolution
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) is right that this is not unprecedented; in fact, it is the normal procedure for a money resolution relating to a private Member’s Bill to be debated ahead of Report. That is not true of Government Bills, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, it is really important that we examine the detail of what we are presented with today, which is an open-ended commitment. The wording makes it absolutely clear that

“any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and…any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act”,

money is so provided. The hon. Lady says that this is not a blank cheque, but it cannot get much more blank than that. Essentially, any moneys associated with the Bill—if it becomes an Act—will be provided.

Pertinent to this vote, we have to ask the question: where will that money come from? Presumably it can come only from existing resource, and one assumes palliative care; it will not come from A&E, surgical treatments or GPs, so it will presumably come from that source. One does not know, of course, but it is perfectly reasonable to ask that question.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will in a second.

On the judicial point, I simply say to the hon. Lady that the establishment of a judicial competence to deal with this system will be resource-hungry. To offer her a parallel example, when I took the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 through the House, we established what was then described as a double lock—it became a triple lock—which required a whole new judicial function to make it happen. It may well be that the same applies in this case, with immense cost and immense pressure on an already overstretched judiciary.

Therefore, in considering those precise matters—not the ethics of the Bill, which are an entirely different consideration, and highly questionable—it is absolutely right and pertinent to ask what this will cost, when, and how it will be delivered. Those questions have not been answered. I scanned the hon. Lady’s speech on Second Reading, and it contained no mention of scale or cost. That is why I am immensely sceptical about what we have before us. While I accept that the money resolution is not unprecedented, it is certainly not desirable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Maya Ellis]

I will not, if that is all right. Sorry.

At the other end of the spectrum, we need to be acutely aware that we are not today expanding overall budgets in the NHS, so what we agree to in this money resolution will put further strain on our already stretched NHS. That means that, for example, St Catherine’s hospice in my constituency, which already requires private fundraising for almost 80% of its income, will have further NHS funding pulled away to accommodate publicly funded assisted dying. It is prudent for us to make clear what we put at risk if we vote through the Bill, having agreed this money resolution. The resolution means that money for palliative care will likely be diminished. The House should consider that in the next stages of the Bill, given what it is supposedly designed to alleviate.

Finally, let us make it clear what we are agreeing to today. I have asked a few times, and never really got a clear answer, why making assisted dying legal has to go hand in hand with a commitment to funding assisted dying on the NHS. Most of us, including me, fiercely protect the idea of an NHS that is free at the point of use, but we risk maternity services encouraging women to pursue induced births rather than planned caesareans, partly because of resource limitations in the NHS. I caution against an agreement to spend money on guaranteeing dignity in dying when we lag so far behind on guaranteeing dignity in birth, and in many other areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I would like to raise a couple of practical and principled concerns about the finances around assisted dying. First, on the practical, I welcome the comment from my hon. Friend the Minister that there will be an impact assessment in due course. However, until we see it, we have no idea what the measure will cost. We are being asked to approve a blank cheque for assisted dying. We have heard that the NHS is a blank cheque, but the NHS has a clearly defined budget. At this point, we do not have any sense of what the Bill will cost. If that were the case for any other legislation, we would be shouting about it.

The Bill represents a profound change to the very nature of our healthcare system, and we are simply guessing at the cost. That is not good for the Bill Committee’s ability to scrutinise, and not good for this place, or for the democratic and legislative process. In order to legislate well, we need a firm commitment. I am glad to have heard that the impact assessment will be published before Report. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) that the motion is routine, and I accept that. However, the consequences are extraordinary, and that is why this is an important moment.

On the principle, whatever the cost, once it is assessed, and despite the Government’s recent financial boost for the hospice sector, palliative care is massively underfunded. The postcode lottery in the provision of end of life care has led to some of the horror stories that we heard on Second Reading. The hospice sector has only 30% of its funding provided by central Government, so this technical stage represents a commitment to taking potentially scarce funding from end of life care and allocating it to ending lives.

[Dr Opher]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[David Smith]

I do not have time. That opens up the dark possibility of a race to the bottom—to looking for savings in the health and social care budget. Any Government would be tempted, where cost saving is a possibility, to push assisted dying as a cost-saving measure; we have seen that in jurisdictions such as Canada.

Finally, let me say this with humility and respect to my hon. Friends on my left. I fear that the Bill will lead to the marketisation of death and dying. We have learned from other jurisdictions that many medical services and clinicians do not want to be part of the delivery of assisted dying, for reasons of principle or because they fear that they will be sued. Independent private health organisations will have to take over to fill the space. Those businesses will have shareholders and annual reports. They will be driven by the desire to maximise profit, with death for the bottom line. They will advertise and seek to expand their market share.

[Dr Opher]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[David Smith]

I am sorry; I am almost finished. This could seem like a tangential point to make on a money resolution, but, to summarise this and my other points, I fear the consequences of the relationship between money—this resolution in particular—and assisted dying. Although I will not be voting against this resolution, because I believe in the democratic process, I think we seriously need to consider the relationship between money and this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

Last summer’s Labour manifesto included the words

“Fully costed, fully funded—built on a rock of fiscal responsibility”,

and they were words on which I was proud to be elected. Money resolutions are normally a formality, but not this one—not today. This resolution asks us to give a blank cheque to this Bill, which makes me nervous, because that sounds like something that we in this changed Labour party just do not do. When we put forward a proposal for public spending, we know how we will fund it.

[Dr Opher]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Antonia Bance]

No, I will not.

In the case of this Bill, we not only do not know how much it will cost or how it will be paid for, but we do not even know what the money will be spent on. Let us think of the questions that we do not know the answers to. What will be the cost of NHS doctors attending the final appointment and waiting while their patient dies? What will be the cost of a second doctor to sign off? What drugs will be used, and how much will they cost? Will assisted dying happen in hospitals, in hospices or in new, purpose-built facilities? How many will there be, and where?

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

Simon Opher Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

Q I hear what you have said already regarding capacity. Of course, the Mental Capacity Act relies on the capacity principles. They include the presumption of capacity, the principle that a person cannot be seen as lacking capacity unless all practicable steps have been taken to support them to make a decision, and the principle that a person cannot be seen as lacking capacity merely because the decision is unwise.

I also heard what you said about the scaling of decision making, but within the Bill, in some of those scenarios there is no mandating; the word “may” is used rather than “must”. I want to understand your viewpoint on whether it would provide stronger safeguards if those parts of the Bill were tightened to include “must” rather than “may”, and if the reference to capacity were replaced with a separate definition of “ability”, as proposed in our amendments.

Professor Whitty: I am probably not the best person to ask about the exact drafting of the Bill in terms of “may” and “must”, but I can answer the second part of your question, which is really important.

If there were no Mental Capacity Act, there would be an argument, which has been used for a long time, that the Bill would have to define what was meant with a fair degree of clarity. It would not be able to do that with just one clause; there would have to be quite a lot of clauses, if I am honest. All systems of this sort are going to be imperfect. The reason why I think it is sensible to base yourself on the Mental Capacity Act is that it is well used and well understood in practice by practitioners every day. Having a system with two completely separate groups of assessment, one of which has never been tested in the courts or used outwith this Bill, would lead to a whole set of potential complications and ambiguities, which are not there at the moment because we have a well-tested mechanism through the Mental Capacity Act.

People should move away from the Mental Capacity Act with some caution, because I think that will cause as many problems as it solves. It is not clear to me what problem people are trying to solve by doing that, given that the Mental Capacity Act clearly makes the point that the more severe the decision, the greater the degree of capacity that has to be assumed before people can actually take that decision. That is the foundation of some of the disquiet that people have had, but it is central to how the Mental Capacity Act works in practice.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

Q You have already said some words about prognosis, which is causing some anxiety. First, are you happy with a six-month prognostic period? Secondly, the Bill says that death should

“reasonably be expected within 6 months.”

Is that in line with your thoughts on the matter?

Professor Whitty: I think that is a reasonable point in time provided that, in taking that period into account, Parliament assumes that we mean a central view that this is six months, although it might be before that and it might be after. Other times would be equally reasonable, but if you are going to choose one, then six months is reasonable. It is generally very predictable that someone is going to die in the foreseeable future, but predicting whether that will be in five months or seven months is a lot harder, and there would be some caution.

Notably, in the countries that have chosen to go down an assisted dying route—a variety of different ones have been chosen—a significant minority of people die before they actually get to the point where that occurs because there is uncertainty in both directions. I think that period is as good as any other, but I want people to be clear that this is not an exact science where you can say, for example, “On 20 August.” It is not as tight as saying that a baby is going be born on a certain date. It has a wider spread of uncertainty around it. In the overwhelming majority of cases, that does not mean that it will go on for months or years longer, but there will be some degree of uncertainty.

[Dr Opher]

Q I am interested in the opt-out whereby ethically, doctors can opt out of taking the decision for patients. Would they then need to steer someone towards another doctor, or can they just simply refuse to do it?

Professor Whitty: Duncan may wish to comment for nurses. For doctors, we should be very mindful of the fact that for some doctors, as for some citizens, this is a point of very strong principle indeed, therefore there will be a gradation of people feeling that they can personally be involved in it. I suspect that if they themselves did not feel able to do it—because of conscience or choice, or because they did not feel that they had the necessary skills—the great majority would have no problem referring on, but it might be an issue for some people.

Personally, my view is that we should be able to have the range, provided that people are aware in general that, if one person cannot provide it and then does not wish to discuss it, there are alternative routes. But that really is a matter for Parliament and if Parliament says, “No, actually, that is unfair on the patient, because then the patient is having to go through an extra step,” that is an alternative and perfectly reasonable principle. Parliament is going to have to balance those two principles; that is not for me as a doctor. I just think that that range of opinion needs to be thought through when people are coming to that final parliamentary decision.

Duncan Burton: If I could add to that, again, I think that bit about the wider workforce and how we would support them is really important. We have situations like this already. We have advice professionally around things such as abortions and working in embryo services and fertility, for example, so we need to make sure that the safeguards for our staff are really clear. As Chris has said, our staff will have a range of views and opinions on this, as will the wider public. So the work you do in creating this Bill is really important in terms of the advice that we give to people about signposting and having those conversations. Actually, our clinicians are having conversations every single day about the choices that people have at the end of their lives.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

Q Sir Chris Whitty, you said that not all mental capacity assessments are safe. Do you think that hopelessness and low mood can affect someone’s capacity and that a sudden diagnosis of terminal illness can lead to some of those states—depression, low mood and hopelessness? Do you think that all doctors are capable of identifying those states?

Professor Whitty: I would hope that most doctors are capable of identifying that someone has some degree—or a large degree—of mental health distress, or mental health illness, if you wish. What not all doctors will feel comfortable doing is actually deciding whether that is sufficient to interfere with someone’s ability to make a decision with full capacity. That is where help from colleagues from psychiatry, and mental health more widely, is going to be useful.

But that should be good medical practice, in my view, under all circumstances. This Bill takes it to a high level of need because of the seriousness of the decisions being taken, but that is part of medical practice. Duncan will have discussed with senior nurses, when he when he was operating clinically, “Should we actually get an opinion from a mental health colleague”—either a community psychiatric nurse, if it is that kind of question, a psychiatrist or others—“to make that assessment?”

That is really the question, but I certainly would not want to be in a situation where the fact that someone with a terminal diagnosis will have some degree of low mood in itself just rules them out from any kind of medical intervention—this, or any other. That should not be the case. They have to have access to whatever the state and the medical profession are able to provide—again, obviously, depending on what Parliament decides on this particular Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

indicated assent.

Dr Green: With regard to the specific questions, no, I do not believe that a doctor has to be a specialist in the individual disease at stake to advise a patient about prognosis. I can only refer you back to what Dr Whitty said: that in the majority of cases, it is fairly clear—this applies to capacity, too—but in some cases, it is not so clear. What is important is that the doctor has the ability to seek further advice if they need it; it is not always required.

[Dr Opher]

Q I have a couple of points to make. First, clause 4(5) states that a

“registered medical practitioner who is unwilling”

to go forward with the assisted dying request

“must, if requested…refer…to another registered medical practitioner”.

Are you happy with that clause?

Dr Green: No, we are not, because we know from our survey that some doctors feel very strongly about this. The word “referral”, to a doctor, means writing a letter or communicating with another doctor to see, but some doctors would find themselves not able to do that. For that reason, we believe that there should be an information service for the doctor to direct to. There is a particular problem with the word “referral”. Doctors would not be able to be obstructive; they have the same duties under good medical practice as they do, for example, with termination of pregnancy requests.

[Dr Opher]

Q My other point follows on from the previous question and is about status. The GMC and the BMA have all specialties of doctors beneath them. Would it be appropriate to have, for example, both doctors as general practitioners, or should there be provision for different doctors as the second doctor?

Dr Green: We have not taken a view on the qualifications of the doctors involved. We had discussions about what grade they should be, for example, but we took the view that their skillset and training was more important than their grade or position.

[Dr Opher]

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

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

[Sarah Olney]

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

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

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

Simon Opher Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before calling the first Member, I remind all colleagues that questions should be limited to matters within scope of the Bill. We have to stick to the timings set out in the programme motion. The first session will finish at 12.30 pm, so can we stick to the points and keep them as short as possible, please? Members who wish to ask a question have indicated that, and I will call them in no particular order. I will start with Simon Opher.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

Q265 I would like to direct this question to Dr Furst. There has been some concern in this country about the efficacy of end-of-life medications. Could you share some of your experience in Australia about how effective they are and any problems you have encountered?

Dr Furst: The medications are completely effective. I have not experienced any failures. One of the things I feel quite comfortable reassuring my patients and their families is that this medication absolutely works.

In terms of oral administration—the default option in South Australia unless the patient cannot consume the medication or has problems with absorption—it puts them to sleep within a couple of minutes. They are heavily sedated, as if undergoing an anaesthetic, and then death ensures—that is, the heart stops and respiration stops. For about 95% of patients, that happens within about half an hour. There is a small, small percentage of patients who will continue to be sedated but circulation will not cease for some hours after that. We warn patients and, more importantly, their families that this may be the case, and that is an enzymatic issue.

The medication it is highly effective. Personally, I have not had any experience where patients have had complications—vomiting, respiratory distress or any other concerns. Certainly in South Australia, those have not been issues that have been reported to us. I think there have been a couple of cases of vomiting elsewhere, but the medication has worked in all cases, as far as I am aware, around Australia as well, so this has not been an issue.

IV administration is also highly effective. By the time the medication has been administered completely, the patient is deceased.

This works—it is peaceful. Patients say to me, “I want to go to sleep and not wake up,” and that is absolutely what happens. It is a very peaceful death.

[Dr Opher]

Q Just to confirm—you have not had any failures of treatment, as far as you are aware?

Dr Furst: There have been no failures of treatment in South Australia, as far as I am aware. I am not aware of any other particular ones around the country that have been heavily broadcast to us.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Q To follow up on that, there is no requirement that the doctor is present when the person self-administers the substance that leads to assisted dying. Am I correct? If that is the case, why does the law not make it necessary for the doctor to remain present until death, because at that point, the doctor would pick up any complications, would they not?

Dr Furst: Every legislation within Australia is slightly different. For South Australia and Victoria, you are correct—well, there is pretty much no obligation all around Australia for a doctor to be present for self-administration. The reason for that is to give individuals autonomy over their death, and over the time and place of their choosing. We in South Australia do touch base with what we call the individual’s contact person to understand if there have been any complications and to check in after the death. A large number of our patients, though, will seek out support from a voluntary assisted dying nurse navigator, who is often present in the house just as a support person. We do also have a lot of feedback from them as to any complications, but the doctor often, or a nurse, will come at a later time to declare life extinct.

The reasoning was that we did not think that there would be complications and we wanted to give people autonomy. We work on a permit system in a lot of jurisdictions in Australia, so people have a permit; they get given their substance and they can take their substance at a time of their choosing. They might have the substance in their house for weeks or months, potentially. Again, there is no obligation to follow through with taking that substance, which we also think is quite important. We know that in Australia, about 30% of patients who have a permit or who are approved for voluntary assisted dying actually decide that they do not want to consume the substance, but it is about giving them that choice and autonomy, and the strength to maybe pursue other lines of therapy.

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

Simon Opher Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Olney]

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

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

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

[Dr Opher]

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

[Sarah Olney]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

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

[Dr Opher]

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

[Sarah Olney]

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

[Dr Opher]

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

[Sarah Olney]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

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

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

for decisions relating to assisted dying or assisted suicide—

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

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

[Dr Opher]

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

[Sarah Olney]

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

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

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

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

Simon Opher Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I would like to bring the Committee back to a certain amount of reality. What we are talking about is how we can assist clinicians to assess coercion and pressure. I like the way we have discussed this in a very good way, trying to make the Bill safe, but would the hon. Lady’s amendment make that any easier for the clinician? I do not think it would. The Bill is very clear as it is. I do not think there will be any implications if there are further amendments, because the Bill provides a statement of what we do; as a clinician, I would understand and be able to apply that.

[Rebecca Paul]

The hon. Member is absolutely right that the amendment would not make it easier for the clinician. My job is not to make it easier for the clinician to determine that someone is eligible for assisted death. It should be a robust, rigorous and well-considered process.

--- Later in debate ---

“Manipulation” is a term that we have in law. It is mainly used in relation to fiscal crime, but also in relation to genetic science. I argue that “manipulation” should and could be included in the Bill.

[Dr Opher]

We are all in this together. We all want the safest Bill possible, so we should defer to the legal side to form the safest language. I am not a specialist on this legal subject but we all want the same thing and we are arguing about words on which we perhaps just need to take advice, to make the safest possible Bill.

[Juliet Campbell]

rose—

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

Simon Opher Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

I rise to briefly speak in support of amendment 281, moved by the hon. Lady and tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell).

At the moment that somebody seeks assisted death through a consultation with a doctor, they stand at a fork in the road: they can either proceed towards the assisted death about which they are inquiring, or turn towards other treatment options. On Second Reading, almost every Member on both sides of this debate stated that we need more palliative care, and everybody emphasised the value of providing good palliative care to all who need it. The amendments in this group would simply give force and power to the clear call of the House of Commons for a strong, realistic palliative care option as an alternative to assisted death, and I would be astonished if members of this Committee chose to vote them down. They give clear expression to the will of the House: that palliative care should be offered, and that it should be apparent that a patient has clearly understood their palliative care options.

I implore members of the Committee to consider what they would be communicating if they rejected the amendments. They would be saying that this is not a fork in the road, but a one-way street: there is only one way that someone is likely to go, and that is onwards to an assisted death. If that is the will of the Committee, it should vote the amendment down. If it thinks, as so many people said on Second Reading, that there should be real choice, and that palliative care should be explained and properly available, then I implore the Committee to support the amendment.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire for their speeches. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who is a fantastic campaigner for excellent palliative care, for tabling the amendment.

I cannot disagree with almost everything that has been said: people need to be given real choice, and they certainly need to be given the choice of palliative care. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said, people need to be offered palliative care. That is absolutely crucial to the Bill. However, the amendment would make it a requirement that a patient has met someone in palliative care. What would happen to a patient’s autonomy if they did not wish to see a palliative care doctor? Would they be excluded from the process? It is incredibly important that people have real choices with respect to palliative care in this process.

I note to the Committee the fact that clause 4(4) states:

“If a registered medical practitioner conducts…a preliminary discussion”

with a person, they have to also discuss with that person

“any available palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.”

That is in the Bill. It needs to be offered.

I have had patients who have not wished to see a palliative care consultant. It is their autonomy to make that choice. I do not think that it is a wise choice—I think almost every doctor would try to push them towards palliative care—but we must not exclude those patients from accessing an assisted death if that is what they want. That does not mean that people should face a fork in the road, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire just mentioned. This is not an either/or: sometimes people can receive excellent palliative care and still request an assisted death, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said.

I absolutely agree with many of the things you have been saying. I totally agree that we need better palliative care—although, actually, we have pretty good palliative care. In 2017, palliative care in this country was the best in the world, and we need to rebuild back to that again. But having a requirement that someone has to have seen a palliative care consultant will weaken the Bill. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

Thank you, Mr Efford. I am perplexed as to why some of the straightforward improvements to the safeguards have not been accepted. That should give us all pause for thought. If everyone here wants this to be the safest assisted dying service in the world, we must learn from other territories and improve the safeguards. Our priority should not be to make the service as accessible as possible, with as few barriers as possible, or to make it as easy as possible for medical practitioners to sign off. Time and again, throughout our proceedings, the importance of autonomy has been given as the reason why amendments cannot be accepted, but surely that must be balanced against what is in someone’s best interests.

It is clear that in other areas of medicine a best interests approach is taken, for example under section 63 of the Mental Health Act 1983, which states:

“The consent of a patient shall not be required for any medical treatment given to him for the mental disorder from which he is suffering”.

A patient can thus be deemed to have capacity, and yet still receive treatment that they have refused, for example in the force-feeding of a young girl with anorexia. Those who argue for full autonomy would no doubt rail against this best interests approach. However, I suggest that it is always worth considering what we would want to happen if it were our daughter.

This is not an easy balance to get right—I completely concede that—but right now the Bill has no best interests component. That means that if anyone inadvertently qualifies for assisted dying but should not, for example an anorexic girl who has refused treatment, there is no safety mechanism to take her out of scope. The amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) would have gone some way to addressing that.

Clause 1 will profoundly change how society views suicide. Data from overseas territories indicates that introducing assisted dying can actually increase the number of unassisted suicides. In Oregon, whose system this Bill is specifically based on, non-assisted suicide has increased by a statistically significant amount. That demonstrates the seismic shift in attitudes that accompanies this, so when we tell our young people that suicide is not the answer and to seek help, we must do so knowing full well that the key message will be undermined by the availability of an assisted dying service, which may be plastered across billboards and advertised on daytime TV.

[Dr Opher]

May I say that this is skewed statistics? There is no statistical evidence that suicide increases in jurisdictions that have assisted dying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

There is a lot to talk about in this group and I thank you, Mr Efford, for calling me to speak. I would also like some confirmation about the term “medical condition”, and I agree with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that we need to absolutely nail that. I am still to be convinced on the question of a condition that does not come under illness or disease but would come under “medical condition”, so I agree that we need to be very clear about what that means.

Frailty is very often diagnosed in older people and I fear that “medical condition” could be equated with that, which would open up the Bill. We need to decide whether we want to do that. Personally, I would not support that in any way. If this is an opening for that, we need to close it, so I agree with the hon. Member in that respect.

Some of the other amendments do not materially add anything to the Bill. On changing “an inevitably” to “a typically”, I do not think that would change the Bill—in fact, I think it would weaken it slightly, so I would not support amendment 123.

Both amendment 11 and amendment 181 talk about how we can exclude mental health issues as a cause for seeking assisted dying. My personal feeling is that the Bill is strong enough as introduced to exclude that. I point people to clause 2(3):

“For the avoidance of doubt, a person is not to be considered to be terminally ill by reason only of the person having one or both of—

(a) a mental disorder, within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983;

(b) a disability, within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.”

I think that is pretty tight; I do not think that people with anorexia could be given an assisted death under this legislation. That is my personal view, and I am happy to be persuaded otherwise if the whole Committee thinks we need to tighten up the measure significantly. It is important to make that very clear so that the Bill cannot be amended away from what we wish it to be. I think all of us would say that we do not want patients with anorexia to be able to access assisted dying—I have not spoken to anyone who does not agree—so the question is how we nail it down in the Bill.

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

I have great sympathy with amendment 11 in particular, which is clearly motivated by a desire to ensure that having a mental illness or disability alone does not qualify someone for an assisted death under the Bill. It is worth saying that clause 2(3) already does that and, therefore, the amendment is not necessary. However, the hon. Member for Spen Valley has tabled amendment 181, which further tightens that language. In my view, amendment 181 strengthens the Bill by simplifying the language to make it absolutely clear that a person is not considered to be terminally ill if they have a mental disorder or a disability alone. The chief medical officer, Professor Whitty, encouraged us to keep this simple, and that is precisely what amendment 181 does. Therefore, I support the amendment.

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

Simon Opher Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

I have sympathy with amendments 399 and so on tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. On the understanding that I await Ministers’ input, a constellation of illnesses, diseases and so on can, combined, lead to an inevitable end of life, and it might be useful to have clarification on that. It is no one’s intention to widen the provisions, and if this is an example of where we, as a Committee, can work constructively together to ensure that clarification is given and the will of the House as expressed on Second Reading is followed, we can potentially do that.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I would like to make a short comment. It is very important that the Committee does not get too hung up on anorexia, because the Bill is very clear about what is excluded. Deprivation of nutrition is always reversible. Someone who is anorexic and about to die would go into multi-organ failure and be unconscious and unable to give any sort of consent. Before that, the nutritional deprivation is reversible and therefore not covered under the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

I just wanted the hon. Gentleman to comment on the reality in our NHS at the moment that people are described as terminally ill with anorexia. They are given the label of being terminally ill and put on palliative care pathways because it is assumed that their condition is not reversible. Doctors today, in this country, are concluding that people with eating disorders are going to die and are treating them accordingly. Is he aware of that, and how does it affect his comments?

[Dr Opher]

I am not aware of that. I believe that this is always reversible until a person goes into the absolute terminal stage of multi-organ failure. Before that, we can reverse nutritional deprivation. I do not accept that point, and I think it is important that we look at the Bill in all its detail. I think it has enough safeguards to exclude someone with anorexia.

[The Chair]

I have received a manuscript amendment from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that he wishes to move. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a manuscript amendment requires a very high bar and exceptional circumstances. I do not believe that exceptional circumstances are present, and he will be aware that further amendments can be proposed to the clause for consideration on Report. That is my decision on the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Lady for that extremely good news. That would definitely be helpful and provide some reassurance.

Amendments 9 and 10 are essential to ensure that those people who are never intended to eligible for assisted dying under this Bill are kept outside of it. Amendment 9 seeks to ensure that it is not just illnesses that can be reversed by treatment, but illnesses where the progress can be controlled or substantially slowed by treatment, that are ineligible—diabetes being the classic case, which can be slowed and controlled by treatment. Amendment 10 further bolsters that by ensuring that treatments that improve prognosis are not disregarded under clause 2(1)(a).

The problem that we have with clause 2 in its current form is that it fails to distinguish between those who are truly at the end of their life and those who only become terminal if they do not access treatment. There is no requirement for a person to be receiving medical care when their prognosis is assessed, which means that many manageable but irreversible conditions—like diabetes, potentially, and chronic kidney disease—could qualify as terminal if treatment is stopped. Let us take the example of someone with type 1 diabetes, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), who tabled these amendments. If she were to stop taking her insulin, she might meet the criteria for terminal illness under the Bill and qualify for an assisted death—I mean, I certainly hope she would not. Without treatment, type 1 diabetes could arguably be an inevitably progressive and irreversible condition that would result in death within weeks or months.

[Dr Opher]

There is nothing inevitable about a diabetic getting worse; they just need to take the right treatment, so I would say that “inevitable” is a key word. I respect what the hon. Lady is saying about the amendments, and they do have some value, but I do think it is covered by the current language—

“inevitably progressive…disease…which cannot be reversed.”

I think “inevitable” and “cannot be reversed” are enough of a safeguard to make this a good clause.

[Rebecca Paul]

I know the hon. Member has a huge amount of experience on this matter given his career, so I thank him for that contribution.

It must not be forgotten that it is the nature of such illnesses for there to be periods of unwellness, when people are at their lowest ebb, and it is our job to protect them from something that could sound appealing at that moment in time. The crux of this issue is that—subject to the point that the hon. Member for Spen Valley made about the improvements that we may now see following the amendments that we have just discussed—the Bill makes no distinction between a condition that is inevitably fatal and one that could be substantially slowed with treatment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

It is absolutely what is guiding me. I am sure we all know people who were told that they had six months to live and have lived a lot longer. We have heard stories of people who were told that they had six months to live and lived beyond 20 years more. We have heard lots of tragic cases, for example in the world of Dr Jamilla Hussain, that would really benefit from the Bill’s being available to them. But equally, there are other families whose loved ones have survived—and not just survived, but thrived for years and years. In fact, a close friend of mine, who happens to be a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, was diagnosed not to live very long. It was an emotional time for her daughters. Eighteen and a half years later, she is still alive, well and thriving.

[Dr Opher]

I must admit that I rejoice in these stories—it is fantastic that these things can happen—but shall we just outline exactly how the Bill will work? If you are given a prognosis of six months by a doctor and you decide that you want to—

[The Chair]

Order. Again, can we stop using the second person?

[Dr Opher]

Sorry—will my hon. Friend not accept that this Bill will work in such a way that people may register for assisted dying, but only actually do it when their death is close? Therefore, if they get better and unexpectedly live longer, they will not take their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I am happy to withdraw that comment, given the welcome intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. When intervening on me in a previous sitting of the Committee, she stressed that most of the assisted deaths of people with eating disorders took place in the Netherlands and Belgium. The survey that Ms Roff and her colleagues carried out did find that the Netherlands and Belgium had more assisted deaths of people with eating disorders than Oregon, but it also found that Oregon itself had more than one such case. California and Colorado have also accepted people with eating disorders as subjects for assisted death. I remind hon. Members that, as I noted earlier, Oregon has a considerably smaller population than England and Wales. In 2023, the last year for which we have full data, Oregon had a population of just 4.25 million. By contrast, England and Wales had a population of 60.85 million—more than 14 times higher.

Perhaps it is the case that Oregon has had two assisted deaths for anorexia sufferers, as one witness told the Committee. In England and Wales, we have 14 times the population of Oregon. If it became legal for sufferers of advanced-stage anorexia to take their lives by assisted dying, we would almost certainly have more cases than Oregon.

[Dr Opher]

Does my hon. Friend not believe that an eating disorder is reversible? Under the Bill’s provisions, if someone has a condition that can be reversed by treatment, they would not be appropriate for assisted dying. Is she saying that eating disorders are not reversible?

[Naz Shah]

Absolutely not. That is not the point that I am making. Eating disorders are reversible, but it has been found that where this kind of legislation has been enacted, across the globe, somebody who has anorexia and decides not to eat then falls within the scope of assisted dying because it becomes a terminal illness.

[Naz Shah]

I concur with the hon. Member’s remarks.

[Dr Opher]

Actually, there is a lot of debate about whether terminal states of eating disorders actually exist or not, so they cannot be said to be a real thing in that way. Some people in the profession think they certainly do not exist, so I would contest the point made by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but the truth of the matter is we have 10 cases that have gone to the Court of Protection. In nine of those 10 cases, judges ruled that the young people—women and girls, one was only 19—did have the capacity not to take treatment.

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

Simon Opher Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Francis]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I accept that we had a long debate on issues relating to mental capacity in respect of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, but we heard in oral evidence significant representations and concerns regarding how the Mental Capacity Act 2005 would work in connection with assisted dying. The purpose of the amendment is to reverse the burden of proof in relation to capacity.

In general—rightly, as I have said previously—a person is assumed to have capacity unless it is shown that they do not. As we have heard, that is a deliberately low bar in order to preserve the basic human right to participate in society and to ensure that normal daily life does not require us all to prove that we have capacity every time we make a decision. The downside of that assumption, however, is that in situations of limited or unreliable evidence, or a very borderline case, the person has to be assumed to have capacity. It is surely clear that that could put many people into real danger if such an approach were taken with assisted dying.

We should not be afraid to say that a person who is terminally ill is potentially vulnerable. Depression and stress are common and understandable responses to a terminal diagnosis and, whether we like it or not, some people in our society will prey on the fragile for their own gain. Our job is to confront the risk of someone being given access to an assisted death not because that is their considered wish, but because no conclusive evidence is available to the doctors at the time of the assessment, or because someone is controlling or coercing that person and able to persuade them in favour of an assisted death that they do not truly want by hiding any signs of their impaired capacity until it is too late.

On previous amendments, I have spoken from my personal perspective. As parents of a child with a learning disability, our greatest concern is what will happen to our child after we have gone. That is the principal thing—the sole thing, I think—that keeps my wife and me up in the night: what will be that determination for our daughter one day? I hope that her twin will remain with her, and that her twin will be the person who makes those decisions for her, but that may of course not be the case. I know that we may have to entrust the state or others to make those determinations for her in due course.

Every parent of a child with a learning disability considers that determination every day. I know that it weighs on their minds not only in connection with this clause; the decisions about their child will also weigh on their minds when we get to clause 4. I am not talking about my daughter’s case, because she does not have enough capacity, but for those people who do have enough capacity—we know from the evidence that the majority of people with a learning disability do have enough capacity—the decisions that may be made for them in due course will weigh on their minds.

In those circumstances, I suggest it is appropriate and reasonable that the assisted dying process maintains the other principles of the Mental Capacity Act, but reverses the presumption in favour of capacity in order to keep people safe. We have heard that doctors are familiar with the Act, including in cases where people sometimes do and sometimes do not have capacity. On that basis, it is not a great leap for them to look for evidence that a person does have capacity, rather than the opposite. That is a normal exercise of their judgment. It is a compassionate and common-sense approach.

I remind Members of what I have said previously about the position of the Law Society: the issue of what capacity should mean, and how to assess it, is central to the Bill. The Law Society considers that the Bill should be clearer in its approach to capacity for the purposes of ending a terminally ill person’s life. Although expert opinion may reasonably differ on whether to use the Mental Capacity Act approach or to introduce a stand-alone definition, the utmost clarity is required if the Bill’s safeguards are to be robust and effective. The Law Society’s recommendation is that before the clause becomes law, a comprehensive consultation should be undertaken to allow relevant experts to share views on the appropriate definition of capacity for the purpose of the Bill.

I will not quote everything again—I have quoted it all previously—but we have heard oral evidence on this matter, including concerns about how the Mental Capacity Act may be interpreted, from Professor House, through Baroness Falkner, Fazilet Hadi, Dr Hussain, Chelsea Roff, Professor Owen and Dr Price, to Dan Scorer of Mencap. My amendment is a compassionate and common-sense approach that would provide reassurance to members of the public. I invite the Committee to support it.

Amendment 398, tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate, goes further than my amendment, and beyond its scope, but I have some sympathy with it. I will repeat some of what I have said previously, in that I remind the Committee of the statutory principles of the Mental Capacity Act:

“A person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he lacks capacity…A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps”—

that remains a grave concern of mine—

“to help him to do so have been taken without success”,

and a person

“is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because he makes an unwise decision.”

I remain happy to stand corrected, as I have continued to ask for clarification on this matter, but my point that doctors or other professionals would have to take all practical steps to help them to make a decision related to assisted death has not been challenged. The matter was clearly considered to some degree previously, given that clause 62 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 states:

“For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that nothing in this Act is to be taken to affect the law relating to murder or manslaughter or the operation of section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961…(assisting suicide).”

I also challenge whether the Bill’s authors have considered all the scenarios outlined in chapter 3 of the Mental Capacity Act code of practice, entitled “How should people be helped to make their own decisions?”, and particularly those relating to the involvement of family members and carers. Similarly, in chapter 4, “How does the Act define a person’s capacity to make a decision and how should capacity be assessed?”, the code states at paragraph 4.50:

“For certain kinds of complex decisions (for example, making a will), there are specific legal tests…in addition to the two-stage test for capacity.”

Those tests are laid out, but they do not include this scenario.

As I did yesterday, I refer to the Equality and Human Rights Commission paper provided to Members in advance of Second Reading:

“A vital factor in determining how to manage access to assisted dying will be the concept of mental capacity in the context of a decision of this nature and gravity. It will be important to ensure that all decision-makers involved in the process have a full and clear understanding of the law around mental capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Sensitive consideration must be given, in particular, to the interaction between mental capacity, mental health issues, learning disabilities and conditions such as autism. Clause 30 of the bill states that the Secretary of State ‘may’ issue codes of practice…However, it does not oblige them to do so.”

For those reasons, I remain concerned about continuing to use the full definition under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. I therefore commend the amendment to the Committee.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford for his sensitive and well presented amendment. I have a couple of things to say about it.

My hon. Friend says that the Mental Capacity Act is a low bar, but in the Act it is important that when we assess people for mental capacity we look at the gravity and complexity of the situation, and therefore take more consideration of deeper understanding of the issues if the gravity of the decision is very enhanced. There is scope within the Mental Capacity Act to take in these types of assisted dying assessments.

[Daniel Francis]

I hear that. There are different decisions, whether it is buying a coffee or seeking an assisted death. Would my hon. Friend concur that, for some individuals in those scenarios who may be by themselves because of the circumstances of their lives and about whose capacity there may be doubt, the doctor must presume in the first instance that they have capacity, and that the doctor must assist them in making a decision?

[Dr Opher]

Yes, I totally accept that. The Mental Capacity Act is set so that we assume capacity and look for evidence of lack of capacity. The great danger with the amendment is that it would change a whole raft of very well used provisions. As Professor Whitty said, the Act is used up and down the country every day; I have used it myself many times, and taught it as well. If we change the emphasis from the presumption of capacity to the presumption of incapacity, which is what my hon. Friend is suggesting, that is a major change in the Act.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Given what my hon. Friend has just said—that he accepts the premise of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford that the doctor would have to assist—can he help me to understand where that leaves the issue of autonomy if a doctor is, as he has agreed, allowed to assist in the decision?

[Dr Opher]

The way the doctor assists, if making a mental capacity assessment, is to try to tease out the four concepts. Does the patient understand what they are being asked to agree to? Sometimes mental capacity assessments are very straightforward and last five minutes; sometimes they last an hour. I have done one that lasted about 90 minutes because it was really important to tease out whether the patient genuinely understood what they were doing. That is the sort of assistance I am talking about. It is not about trying to persuade them to make a decision that I think is the right decision; it is just making sure that they understand it, can remember it and so on.

[Naz Shah]

How does my hon. Friend respond to not one, not two, but multiple witnesses, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists, saying, absolutely contrary to what he is saying, that the Mental Capacity Act is not the right bar and that the bar is too low?

[Dr Opher]

Well, that was disputed by other psychiatrists. We are asking questions about whether the Mental Capacity Act is safe and correct for the Bill. This whole Committee is about making the Bill safe. None of us would dispute that. However, I think that if we accept the amendment, the Bill will become less safe because the amendment would change a massive piece of legislation and therefore have a number of repercussions that we do not understand.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

Chris Whitty made the same point that the hon. Gentleman has just made: that there would be knock-on effects and that the Mental Capacity Act works very well currently. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that Chris Whitty himself misrepresented the Mental Capacity Act in the evidence he gave to the Committee? He had to write to us subsequently to clarify his comment, and his clarification contradicted the hon. Gentleman’s implication that the Mental Capacity Act has different thresholds for different levels of decision. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it does not? The Act has one threshold: capacity as it defines it. Some doctors may have longer conversations than others depending on the severity of the case, but the threshold is the same—Chris Whitty misrepresented it.

[Dr Opher]

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

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

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

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

[Dr Opher]

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

[Naz Shah]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

It is really important to understand that for the majority of people mental capacity can be assessed reasonably quickly because it is very clear whether they have it or do not have it. What we are talking about, I think, is a small proportion of patients in which it is unclear whether they have mental capacity. There is scope in the Bill for those circumstances, when the patient should be referred to an enhanced level of mental capacity assessment by a psychiatrist or a psychological nurse. In that way, it makes it much safer. We do not need to redesign the Act for that small number of patients because we already have a very safe route to assess capacity.

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he has been generous with his time. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the evidence from Alex Ruck Keene KC on mental capacity. He sets out very clearly the myths around mental capacity, one of which is that mental capacity is well understood. He argues that it is not. How would the hon. Gentleman respond to that?

[Dr Opher]

I think that in most cases mental capacity is very well understood, and it is very clear, as I have said. I would say that, as practising clinicians, almost every GP has to do it. I would not sign up a doctor in training if they could not do it. I think it is a little bit rich to suggest that we cannot assess capacity. I agree with many of the comments that have been made about assessing capacity in more difficult cases for most doctors, and I think we do need an avenue, in those situations, to get further opinions.

[Naz Shah]

The hon. Gentleman said it would be rich for people to say that capacity cannot be assessed. That is not the case. I am not convinced about that, and I am not sure, from the evidence I have seen, that anybody is saying that anybody is not capable of assessing capacity per se. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the argument is about assessing capacity for this Bill in particular? That has not been tested. The Royal College of Psychiatrists is very clear, as are many other experts, including legal experts, that the Bill has not been tested for that purpose. Therefore, the Mental Capacity Act does not meet the purpose for the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

I feel that the Committee has been through these points quite extensively. There is clearly a disagreement in our beliefs; I accept that, but it is very important to make the Bill as simple as possible, because that is the best safeguard. I believe that the Mental Capacity Act is the right test for whether people have capacity. I reiterate that if there is a doubt in the clinician’s mind, there should be an avenue to get an expert opinion on capacity.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend reassured, as I am, that although we are focusing here on one conversation, we know from the provisions in the Bill that there will be multiple conversations? There will be a doctor, a second doctor, a psychiatrist, and then oversight by an expert panel. It is not just one assessment of capacity; there are multiple occasions. Does that reassure my hon. Friend, and hopefully other colleagues?

[Dr Opher]

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

[Sarah Olney]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In her evidence, Dr Rachel Clarke said:

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

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

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

Amendment 50 states that

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Opher]

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

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

[Sarah Olney]

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

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

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

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

In his evidence, Professor House said:

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

“significant variation in practice by doctors and low self-confidence in the practice of MCA.”

[Dr Opher]

On tightening capacity assessments, which is what the amendment is trying to do, I would point out that there are a number of amendments coming up that would mandate training for doctors who are registered to assess capacity—for example, amendment 186. In addition, amendment 6 would mandate psychiatric referral if there was any doubt of capacity. Does that not satisfy the hon. Member?

[Danny Kruger]

It pleases me but it does not satisfy me. I am encouraged by it, but I am not fully satisfied. Obviously, it is insufficient. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Spen Valley put great faith in the training that we are going to introduce. Well, I hope they are right. Let us certainly do as much training as we can— likewise, let us get as much data as we can—but the provision set out is not sufficient, not least because the training will be in the application of the Mental Capacity Act, which we are saying, even if properly applied, has all sorts of problems with it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate explained.

Yes to training and yes to the option of the referral—that should be mandatory, and I think there is a proposal to effect that. Every additional safeguard is welcome. It goes back to my point about whether we are being thorough or simplistic. I am not sure. If I think there are four assessments, but the hon. Member for Stroud thinks there are eight, does that not fail Chris Whitty’s test of being simple? If eight is in fact thorough, would nine not be even more thorough? The suggestion that we have hit it at the perfect sweet spot and that to veer one side is to introduce all sorts of bureaucratic hurdles seems unrealistic. Surely we can apply a little more rigour to this exercise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I would indeed support that amendment; it would go a long way to addressing the concerns that we have here. When we discuss clause 4, I will come on to some suggestions for how we can make sure that people with learning disabilities are properly supported, particularly people with Down’s syndrome.

To finish, I will speak to amendment 50, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. If we are going to proceed with the MCA, we need to have it on the face of the Bill, to ensure standardisation —hon. Members have confidently asserted that it happens anyway, although the evidence we have been presented with demonstrates that it does not in all cases. Let us be much more explicit about the requirements that are needed. We should specify the minimum of what needs to be understood for capacity, including understanding the likely process of all treatment options, including non-treatment, and prognostic uncertainty. It is not acceptable, in my view, to have all of that worked out later by clinicians. Parliament must clearly say at this stage what is important.

While Members are looking at the quite extensive terms of amendment 50, it would be good to know what in that list they would object to and why any of it should not be included. It does not change the Mental Capacity Act; it preserves the integrity of the Act. It simply specifies more precisely and gives clear guidance to doctors to ensure that they do the best job they can. Lastly, it states that the patient must have full understanding of the consequences of

“requesting assistance in ending their own life”.

That includes the potential for medical complications at the end. That is a point that has been touched on a little in debate, but I will quickly say a word on that.

It is very important, in my view, that we are clear about what the patient should do, what the doctor should do, what the patient is entitled to do and what the doctor will do, in the event of complications at the end. This is not an abstract question. The Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland gave evidence to us, stating:

“It is important to highlight the lack of scientific evidence for the effectiveness, failure rates or complications of any ‘approved substance’”,

and pointing out that the proposals in the Bill fall quite short of

“the usual practice of approving treatments in the UK, which mandates careful assessment of drugs and their combinations.”

We do not know how that will be applied in this case. It is a point for later in the Bill how we consider which drugs should be used, but it is relevant at this stage to insist that patients are made fully aware of the drugs that will be used and their potential complications. We often refer to Oregon as an inspiration for the Bill, and the law in Oregon requires the applicant to be fully informed by the attending physician of the

“potential risks associated with taking the medication to be prescribed”.

It might be worth considering that.

Professor House, in evidence to us, pointed out that informed consent—which is obviously a principle of the Bill—

“is not really specified properly. The doctor is required to ask the person what they want to happen in the event of complications without having previously explained to them what all the complications might be.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 169, Q216.]

So I think it is important that we specify that those complications are explained to them clearly at the outset.

This is not an abstract point. Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying—my least favourite organisation—wrote in her book “Last Rights”:

“We have to move away from idealised, sanitised, nursery-rhyme accounts of what death can be…towards truthful, no bullshit, plain-spoken explanations of what could happen.”

I do not think Dignity in Dying applied that test when putting those disgraceful adverts in the tube, showing people dancing round their kitchens anticipating their lovely death, but she is right that we need to be very clear about what actual death can be like with these drugs.

I want to end with a reference to the work of Dr Joel Zivot, an American academic. The only proper study that can be done into people who have been given lethal drugs to die, using any of the drugs that will be used in this case, is of people who have been executed in the United States. Of course it is not possible to do many studies into the after-effects on people who have had an assisted death, but there have been some studies of people on death row. Dr Zivot’s point is that there is real evidence of what looked like trauma, distress and pain suffered by people as they died. Even if they themselves look peaceful—because often the first drug that is administered is a paralytic, so they are rendered immobile, and they may look very peaceful—it is evident that in some cases there is real distress going on beneath that peaceful exterior. We need to do a lot more work on understanding which drugs would be used and what their effects would be, and that needs to be properly explained to patients. All of that would be captured in amendment 50.

[Dr Opher]

We are talking about a whole different area now, but I would say that, as a medical professional, if someone is gaining consent to a treatment it is in their code of practice under the General Medical Council that they explain all these things. We do not need to write it into the Act; that is already in existence. A more general point is that there is a lot of stuff already in the public domain on doctors’ behaviour that does not need to be restated in the Bill. The more we write, the more likely it is that it will be less safe for patients. I would keep it very simple.

[Danny Kruger]

I really want someone to explain this point to me: how can it make it more unsafe for patients to state the safeguards explicitly? How can it possibly make it harder, or more dangerous, if we specify what—as the hon. Gentleman said—is good practice currently, which the best doctors already do? I greatly respect him and his medical practice, but is he really saying that every doctor conforms perfectly to the GMC guidance? There are obviously clear problems with the way in which some doctors operate, and this is uncharted territory. Surely for the sake of doctors, as well as patients, it would be appropriate to specify explicitly how they should conduct these assessments, what communications they should make and what patients should be properly informed of. I cannot see how that makes it more dangerous.

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

Simon Opher Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

Patients who are considering assisted dying have had terrible news. They have been told that they may well die within six months. They will be grieving, uncertain and very scared. These people deserve to know the full picture when they have their initial discussions, and these intelligent and constructive amendments would help to ensure that they had the full picture. I ask all members of the Committee to support them.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I will briefly go through my impressions of the amendments. A lot of amendments in this group call to mind one of the difficulties that we are having in Committee, which is about the role of professional integrity against what we should be putting down in law. One problem is that, if we state something in law and a professional does not do it, then they are acting in an illegal way—and that introduces a different concept into a medical consultation. We must be very careful about introducing to a medical consultation a load of requirements in law, therefore reducing the freedom of that consultation whereby the doctor and patient can decide on what is best for the patient.

Amendment 342 is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. I reiterate that all the amendments have been tabled in good faith, and I absolutely respect them. The amendment would mean that the initial doctor—who is likely to be a GP—to whom the person comes and wants to speak to about assisted dying “must” conduct a preliminary discussion, rather than

“may (but is not required to)”.

The problem there is that some doctors will be conscientious objectors to assisted dying and we have to protect their integrity. We must not force them to do something that is against their will.

I note that amendment 341, which we will come to later, is about the obligation to give information to the patient if they ask for assisted dying. That is an appropriate amendment, but forcing a doctor who does not agree with assisted dying to discuss it is not fair on the medical practitioner. That is not what the Bill is about. In many other places, there is freedom for the medical doctor to avoid getting involved in discussions if they do not wish to. That is an incredibly important part of, and concept in, this Bill. Without that, I think the medical profession would not accept the Bill. That is very important.

Amendment 285 is about needing to consult a specialist in the relevant illness. I think we need to understand the process of what will happen under the Bill. Let us take an example of a patient under an oncologist—a cancer specialist. The oncologist will almost certainly say at some point during the consultation with the patient, “I think that there is no further treatment that is going to prolong your life, and you are likely to have six months or less to live.” That will be done by a specialist. I do not know general practitioners who would confidently predict a prognosis of six months or less; it would come from a specialist. Indeed, cancer care in this country, until the palliative phase, is generally run by specialists and hospitals. GPs are not generally involved, apart from to support the patient. However, if the oncologist feels that the patient has less than six months to live, they would probably come to see the doctor under this legislation, and the initial discussion will then take place. They will already have a steer as to the likely prognosis.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I am trying to understand. My hon. Friend is saying that the oncologist is a specialist, but that they might not be the first doctor to have the first discussion; he said that they might not want to be a part of this process. I would like to understand that a bit more.

[Dr Opher]

As far as I see, under the Bill there is an initial discussion when a patient who is requesting assisted dying goes to see a medical practitioner. It does not specify what type of practitioner, which is good because it means they can ask either the oncologist or the general practitioner. That initial discussion is with a doctor, and then the doctor will refer for the first declaration, or they may do the first declaration themselves. That is how the Bill is set out, but the general practitioner will have had specialist opinions on the patient. They would not just say, “Well, maybe you’ve got less than six months to live—I don’t really know, but let’s have a guess.” This will be based on informed information from a specialist.

[Danny Kruger]

I do not want to labour the point, but does the hon. Member not acknowledge the Bill does not require that at the moment? He is saying that it will happen. Why will it happen—just because the doctors do their job well? Does he recognise there is no obligation to have this wide consultation with other specialists under the Bill? The doctor could do just as he has described and take a decision on their own.

[Dr Opher]

Again, this is a really interesting part of the Bill. If a doctor is routinely giving prognoses of six months where that is not appropriate, they will come up against the General Medical Council for being poor doctors, and the regulation around poor doctors is within the medical profession. If it is proven that someone has given a diagnosis that they cannot back up in any way, they would then be subject to their own professional standards. That is one of the things here: we cannot go through this Bill and specify the medical requirements at every stage, because that comes under a different format, which is called the General Medical Council. If someone has given a prognosis of six months or less, and if that is clearly inaccurate and would be contested by other doctors, they would be brought before the General Medical Council.

[Lewis Atkinson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the provision of a further independent doctor assessment—both one and two—in addition to the doctor conducting the initial discussion, would provide a further safeguard for a diagnosis, if terminality could not be supported by other professionals?

[Dr Opher]

I absolutely agree. We are imagining that the doctors will all be independent and will not know anything about what other doctors have said, but there will be communication and access to medical records, and they will also tell the original doctor what their opinion is, and so on.

If we accept these amendments, we risk over-embroidering the Bill, which will make it almost impossible for doctors to say anything in a consultation. We must leave that free, because that is a central tenet of medical care, and if we put laws around it, there will be legal process over the medical consultation, and doctors will be frozen with fear about breaking the law. They are regulated by the GMC, and we are all terrified of referrals to the General Medical Council for that very reason: because we are trying to operate at the best standard that we can. I truly understand the amendments, but I do not think they will make the Bill any safer, and that is what we are all here for.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I am very sympathetic to the amendment and have thought long and hard about it. Can my hon. Friend explain to me, from his experience, but also from looking at the Bill and speaking to others, the effect of clause 4(4)(b)? As a non-clinician layperson, it appears to me that if a medical practitioner is discussing the likely effect of any treatment, then by its very nature that would lead to a discussion about prognosis, and the uncertainty and certainty around that.

[Dr Opher]

What my hon. Friend points out is absolutely true. The Bill’s drafting is simple but very effective. For prognosis, for example, it says that it is

“reasonably…expected within 6 months.”

As we have discussed many times in this Committee, prognosis is not exact; it is an estimate. It suggests that the patient has a terminal illness—that is to say, the illness will lead to their death. All we are arguing about is exactly when that will happen. It is reasonable to say, as doctors already do, “It is likely that you have six months to live.” That is not exact—as doctors, we cannot predict the future, even if people think we can. I totally accept that. However, we can make estimates as to what is likely to happen.

As my hon. Friend just mentioned, there are lots of really good news stories of people living longer than their prognosis. However, for the Bill to be effective, and to give relief to people who genuinely need it, we have to have a prognosis, based on medical evidence, of six months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

From what I hear, my hon. Friend is supportive of the amendment. Does he agree that it just sets out what he says is best practice? I am trying to understand the objection to setting out good practice on the face of the Bill.

[Dr Opher]

Again, I bring my hon. Friend back to the fact that this is a Bill in law, and what we have to guide us as doctors is the General Medical Council, which sets standards for doctors. That is how we do it. If we are hemmed in by legal matters, we can break the law without being aware of it, if we are not careful. If too many legal parameters are set around medical consultations, the patient will get less good care because the doctor will not be free to offer it. I can see that my hon. Friend does not agree with that, but it is the case.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman is praying in aid the General Medical Council as if it is some sort of effective backstop. He says that the guidance does not need to be in the Bill because it is there hovering over doctors anyway, but the Bill makes explicit reference to GMC guidance—some of it is in there. If he objects to our suggestion to include the full GMC guidance in the communication that should be had, why does he support the presence of some of the guidance that doctors should give? The Bill does not include what the GMC requires: uncertainties about diagnosis or prognosis. Why not include the full GMC guidance in the Bill, seeing as we are including some of it already?

[Dr Opher]

I just do not think it will strengthen the Bill. I thank you for your intervention. It is a moot point.

[The Chair]

Order. I did not intervene.

[Dr Opher]

Sorry, Mr Efford. I do not deny that the hon. Member makes a good point, but if we embroider this too much, the Bill will not be safe. That has been the case throughout. Any good medical care is based on giving treatment, availability and the likely effects of that, and on giving prognosis and the chance of the prognosis being longer or shorter. That is all based in good clinical care.

On amendment 343, the uncertainties of estimates of how long a person has to live are covered in clause 2(1)(b):

“the person’s death in consequence of that illness, disease or medical condition can reasonably be expected within 6 months.”

“Reasonably” is part of the Bill. It suggests that one cannot say that the estimate is exact. The Bill does not say that it is exact; it says that it is a reasonable estimate of that person’s life. I think that takes care of that amendment.

In amendment 344,

“the risks and benefits of such treatment, potential side effects, and the impact of the treatment”

are covered by

“any treatment available and the likely effect of it”

in clause 4(4)(b). My general point is that none of the amendments are actually wrong; they are just unnecessary. I would like to leave it at that.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I will be brief, as I am conscious that the Committee needs to make progress. I will speak briefly to amendment 275 in my name, which, as others have said, amends the current reference of “any available” to “all appropriate”. Listen—people at the end of their life deserve the best. They deserve to know about and have the option to access all appropriate care. In my experience of the NHS, that is exactly what clinical teams ensure patients get. But we need to guard against any suggestion that the information given should be somehow filtered around availability, which I know is not the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.

In my experience, views on availability are often incorrect anyway, so ensuring that “all appropriate” options are offered in information is the best thing to do. If nothing else, it creates a level of societal pressure to ensure that all appropriate care is available, which I hope we can all support.

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

Simon Opher Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

It certainly is. Okay, so it could be either. This will be an NHS service, with all the implications for general practice, doctor-patient relations and secondary care and social care, but there will also be an opportunity to deliver it privately, without any clarity or transparency on who is being paid and how.

In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, this is different from cosmetic surgery, as even cosmetic surgery is regulated. In many ways, there is more regulation of the administering of Botox than there is in this Bill. The administering of assisted dying is of a significantly different category and gravity. It is appropriate and important that financial interests are clearly revealed and made public, particularly with the new intervention we are creating. If other hon. Members do not support the amendment, what provisions do they propose that would reveal where there may be potential conflicts of interest and how we may regulate this?

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire for the amendment. The set-up of this scheme is similar to other NHS services. Essentially, a medical professional will opt in to provide the service. That will involve extensive training followed by a short exam, as it does in Australia and California, after which they will be accredited under the scheme—that is how I understand it will happen in the UK. No one is forced to provide the service, but training is offered and many doctors take that up. Therefore, it is a medically based service.

The British Medical Association will then negotiate the fee for doing the assessment with the Department of Health and Social Care. That is not about agreeing to provide the service; it is about doing the assessment. That is mirrored in many aspects of general practice, which itself is a private service contracted to the NHS. It is very complicated. It would be inaccurate to portray this as a private service, where people may profiteer, as it is based on medical professionals performing a duty for which they are trained and for which the price is clear to the general public, because it is negotiated and published.

On publishing the number of patients seen by a single doctor and the fees that doctor has accrued from the scheme, that is not something that happens for things like minor operations, which we perform outside general medical services, although we are rewarded by the Government at a set fee. There are other such services—inserting a coil, for example—where we are given a certain amount of money.

How this is arranged is very complicated. Doing appraisals, being a trainer and all these things have a price attached, and we need training before we can perform the service. I see this scheme as no different. The problem with publishing how many patients have been seen by a single doctor regarding assisted dying is that it puts a target on that doctor. As we have seen with abortion clinics and even this Committee—certain Committee members have been targeted by the press for what they have said—this is a very sensitive issue, and it would not be fair to publish the figures so that doctors could be targeted in the press and made to feel unworthy in all those ways. It is extremely difficult.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful argument about doctors being vilified in the press, but does he believe there is a risk that it may go further and present a genuine safety risk to those doctors?

[Dr Opher]

Exactly. That is what worries me. I acknowledge what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said about pharmaceutical sponsorship, but I do not think that has anything to do with what we are talking about here. What we are talking about is specifying what doctors are doing as part of their daily job, for which they are trained. It would not be fair to publish those figures and put those doctors at risk.

[Naz Shah]

I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying, because I have mixed views on this. I would like to understand what would be appropriate. My concern is that there will be a difference, because doctors normally have these set-ups for treatment options but, in this instance, the service is not a treatment, so to speak. I genuinely want to understand: in his eyes, what would a good service that provided scrutiny and accountability look like?

[Dr Opher]

There are examples. Appraising other doctors, for instance, is specified as a job that doctors are trained for, and it is paid at a set rate agreed with the Department of Health and Social Care. There are many instances where this occurs. I totally agree that the fee a doctor attracts for the service should be clearly specified and in the public domain, but I do not agree that a single doctor should be identified as having seen, say, 10 patients who have requested assisted death. I think that is unnecessary, will not lead to increased patient safety and will make it less safe for the medical practitioners too.

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

Simon Opher Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I just point out that the amendment states that the independent doctor would

“inform the person’s usual or treating doctor”,

and that is not covered by the paragraph the hon. Gentleman just mentioned. I hope that is helpful.

[Dr Opher]

I do not see what that would add to the Bill. The co-ordinating doctor would have a result and the patient would have had the report back. I do not feel the amendment is necessary—it would over-complicate the Bill—but we can see what the Government’s legal position is on that.

Amendment 303, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, suggests that the independent doctor should have to check that there has not already been a second opinion. We need to step back a bit and remember how the Bill will work. Basically, a doctor will refer to a co-ordinating doctor, who will make a full assessment of the patient. If, having carried out the first assessment, the co-ordinating doctor is satisfied that the requirements in the Bill are met, they will refer the person for the independent assessment. That doctor will therefore need to see a report, because he is the co-ordinating doctor. He cannot then get a second opinion from a different doctor; that would not be part of the process under the Bill. I do not feel the amendment would make the Bill any safer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Opher]

Actually no, I will not. I will go on, if that is okay.

Amendment 459 states that the second-opinion doctor “must produce a report” outlining their reasons for reaching a different opinion, but the whole nature of this is that the doctor is independent. As we have heard, if it is suggested that someone either is or is not allowed to get an assisted death, that might affect the assessment of the independent doctor. It would not be good medical practice to have that assessment in front of the independent doctor—that would lead to poor assessments. We need a right to a second opinion and we should have a truly independent doctor.

Amendment 460, which is the last in the group, would allow a patient only one declaration in any part of their lives, even if circumstances change. Although there will be vanishingly few instances where that would be relevant, I do not feel that such a provision would make the Bill any fairer or safer.

Amendment 143, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, would allow a second and a third opinion. It is my opinion, and the opinion of many of us, that we do not want doctor shopping. We want to allow one second opinion from an independent doctor, but not more than that.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

Amendment 143 has been withdrawn.

[Dr Opher]

Has it? Okay. I thank my hon. Friend.

The amendments in this group all come from a good place, and I understand where hon. Members are coming from, but I do not feel that anything in them would make the Bill any safer or fairer for patients.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger.

I rise to speak to a couple of the amendments. Amendment 348 is likely unnecessary. I would have been minded to support it had it referred to a registered GP, but the language of “usual or treating doctor” is unconvincing. I am not sure what those terms refer to. The registered GP absolutely should be informed, and both normal practice and the provisions in the Bill about entering information into medical records would mean that that is the case. For me, “usual doctor” is not the right terminology; it does not achieve what I think some of its proponents want. With reluctance, I will vote against that amendment because it does not refer to a registered general practitioner.

On amendments 303 and 458, I believe there must be provision for a second opinion. However, I am persuaded by the points made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park about amendment 459. I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud: although the independence of the second opinion is important on matters such as the terminal prognosis, when it comes to the detection of coercion, the more information, the better. It is one thing to be independent in a medical assessment, but the amendment speaks to a psychosocial assessment. We are trying to detect coercion, so it is important that every decision maker gets further information as the process progresses.

The provision for five different touchpoints of assessment is one of the strengths of the Bill. Each assessment should be done in a way that can be progressed with more information. It is not just five different independent points of information; because of the Bill’s record-keeping provisions, the assessment should become increasingly informed throughout the process. I certainly think that the panel, or whatever we get to, should have sight of any negative assessment from an independent doctor, as well as any positive one. The panel will then be able to do its job of scrutinising the two decisions, potentially weighing them up, and calling the different doctors who have given different decisions. I am, then, persuaded by amendment 459.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

What the amendment clarifies is that the doctor does not have to look at any records at all unless he or she considers them relevant. It gives total discretion to the doctor to disregard huge swathes of the patient’s history. Yes, I do expect the doctor to review the entirety of a patient’s record—obviously, the record of a childhood broken leg can be skipped over quickly. What I do not want to do, as the Bill currently does, is allow the doctor to say, “Oh, I missed this evidence of a mental health condition” or “this indication of coercion from five or 10 years ago, because I didn’t consider that aspect of their records to be relevant.” It places a significant obligation on the doctor, but that is, I am afraid, what we are doing in the Bill. We are placing huge obligations on doctors and we should do it properly.

[Dr Opher]

As the amendment states, it is about examining medical records for things that are relevant. If we are talking about coercion or capacity, these sorts of items will be relevant. I do not know if Members have ever seen medical records. Some people have extremely large medical records, and we have summaries for that, but if a part of that summary indicated something that we were suspicious of, we would look into it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central has just said, the complexities of childhood tonsillitis do not really need to be examined in this case. We have to, and we always do, specify what we look into doctors.

[Danny Kruger]

As I have said in my many exchanges with the hon. Gentleman, I want to see the good practice that he claims—absolutely accurately, I am sure—to perform is applied across the system. He says that if doctors see in the summary some indication of concerns, they will look more closely into it. Well, I jolly well hope they would. The problem is that the summary might not be complete. I suppose the distillation of my point is that we should say, “Don’t rely on the summary. Proceed with a proper analysis. Take responsibility for making sure that you have reviewed the entirety of the patient’s record.”

We have to address throughout our consideration of the Bill the workload that we are placing on busy professionals. Nevertheless, if we consider that this matters—and it is a question about knock-on effects on the NHS, which we could discuss in due course—it is appropriate to expect proper time to be taken. A specialist with two hours and a full record in front of them might spot the misdiagnoses, question the prognosis, flag the depression and catch the abuse. If given half the time and a licence to skim the record, as the amendment would give them, they could very easily miss something, so I think the word “relevant” is a great gamble.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I will try to keep my remarks brief. I first speak to amendment 468, tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate, on the asking of the question why someone wants to have an assisted death. When I originally came to this debate, Dermot, a humanist who was also my election agent—a lovely guy—came to me and said, “Now that this Bill is going through Parliament, will you support it”? I said, “Explain it to me.” He never once mentioned the word “autonomy”. If I remember correctly, what he talked about was suffering, pain and horrible deaths, which many hon. Members have referred to. We have heard lots of examples during this Bill Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire said that the decision was none of a doctor’s business and that the issue was about autonomy. However, if a woman was being coerced into an assisted death, the idea that it was none of the doctor’s business would not quite wash with me. We talk about autonomy, but if someone does not have autonomy in their lives—if they are in an abusive relationship, are a victim of coercion or have a vulnerability—they might not have the choice.

When we ask a question, it is often about something else. I have experienced this myself. I am very passionate; when I am talking about things, somebody might just stop me and say, “Naz—what’s this actually about?” That is all it takes to make me stop, take a step back and a breather, and think for a deeper minute about whether the issue could actually be about something else. We do not always stop to think.

[Dr Opher]

The amendment is good practice; I do not in any way deny that. The hon. Member for Reigate is obviously coming from a really good place. However, the amendment is almost like specifying that when someone goes to see a doctor, the doctor has to say, “How can I help? What is wrong?” It is just unnecessary; that is my only feeling about it. If someone came in and said, “I would like to request an assisted death”, the doctor would not just say, “Okay”—they would ask how the patient was feeling. It is normal medical practice to ask what is going on in someone’s mind, so that does not need to be specified in the Bill.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There is a medical model and a social model of intervention. If I walk into a GP surgery with a really bad headache, I am prescribed paracetamol. If the headache gets worse, I am prescribed something stronger—maybe co-codamol or codeine. Doctors are really busy. We have had to add another 40,000 appointments just for people to get through systems, so we know how hard it is to get a GP appointment.

If the person who turns up at the GP’s with a headache is usually quite healthy, the doctor might not take a minute to ask about what has actually happened. If I say, “I have a headache because I am banging my head against the wall—I have that much stress”, that is a whole different conversation. Having that conversation with the patient—probing a little more—is, for me, very important from a holistic point of view.

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

Simon Opher Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

It is very good to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, on what is probably our last day in Committee. I fully expect that we will reject clause 32 in due course, so although I want to move my amendment, I have no intention of pushing it or any of the other amendments in this group to a vote, but I do want to take the opportunity to address the clause and to speak to the amendment in my name.

Clause 32 was always going to be an important one, because it would have allowed the Government to provide money to fund the assistance to die; it would have allowed the Secretary of State to make financial arrangements to secure the provision of assistance under the Bill. What we might have been debating if we were sticking with this clause—I think it is still worth inviting the hon. Member for Spen Valley and people who support the Bill to speak to this point—is that the Bill will require the Government to fund the provision of assisted suicide services, but it makes no provision to fund the supply of palliative care. I think everyone in this Committee recognises the absolute imperative of a properly supported palliative care sector, and I deeply regret that although the Government are supporting a resourcing of this new service, there is no balancing commitment to provide what we have all acknowledged is the essential corollary of any assisted dying service. What is worse, in clause 32 and in new clause 36, which will replace it, we have something different.

Last Wednesday night, just as the Committee rose, the hon. Member for Spen Valley tabled amendment 538, which would remove clause 32 from the Bill. This is the clause that committed the Secretary of State to make the financial commitments—commitments that were debated in principle when the House debated the money resolution on 22 January. Once again, I regret that important undertakings that were made by the Government and by the hon. Lady have, in the course of the debate subsequent to Second Reading and now subsequent to the money resolution, been superseded by further provisions.

Amendment 538 is consequential on two new clauses, one of which is new clause 37, which will allow Welsh Ministers to set up a system to implement the Bill in Wales. This will give very wide powers to Welsh Ministers, including the powers to make provision about the service that would be outside the legislative competence of Welsh Ministers. That is significant. Unlike clause 32 and new clause 36, which will replace it, new clause 37 does not make any reference to the health service in Wales. I think it is worth us teasing out the challenge to the devolution settlement that these new clauses represent; I am sure the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd will speak to that.

I want to speak briefly, but I hope clearly and powerfully, to the essential challenge. Without getting too involved in the party politics, we all talk about “our NHS”, and in a sense it is our NHS: this nation’s great domestic institution, created in the 20th century in response to the shamefully inequitable provision of healthcare that preceded 1946. Labour rightly claims the credit for having introduced the NHS under the Attlee Government and in fact the Liberals also have a good claim to it—it was a Liberal, Beveridge, who first advocated the provision of a national health service—but what is not enough recognised is that, as I am sure my hon. Friends are proud to say, it was a Conservative Health Secretary who first put before the House of Commons a plan for a national health service: Henry Willink, Health Secretary in the wartime coalition Government. Unfortunately, the public voted us out of power in 1945 and it fell to Labour to implement a slightly different plan. Nevertheless, we can all claim some parentage of this great institution, the NHS. That is why it is so significant that in the new clauses we are debating, a fundamental change to the NHS in England is proposed.

The duty on the Secretary of State under the National Health Service Act 1946, as updated in 2006, is to promote

“a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England…and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness”—

that is, physical and mental illness. That has been the purpose of the NHS since 1946.

I find it curious that a linguistic sleight of hand is being practised in new clause 36. The new phrase, “voluntary assisted dying services” or “VAD services”, is introduced, and it is used to avoid having to spell out that section 1(1) of the NHS Act 2006 will now include references to “assistance to end” the lives of people in England and Wales—that is the language of the Bill as introduced, in the long title and in nearly every clause up to this point. The explicit language that this is about ending people’s lives is avoided in the new clause. Why? I put it to the Committee that it is a hard thing to do: to take a red pen to Bevan’s legacy, to fundamentally change the NHS from one that is

“designed to secure improvement…in the physical and mental health”

of the people of England and Wales, and dedicated to

“the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of…illness”,

and to add to that founding clause “to end” the lives of terminally ill people.

I will be blunter than the drafters have been. New clause 36 changes the NHS from being the national health service to the national health and assisted suicide service. That is its direct implication. Furthermore, the new clause is also designed not only to alter fundamentally the national health service, but to enable the private sector to be paid from NHS funds to end the lives of terminally ill people—and not only that, but to do so with a Henry VIII power so broad as to enable any changes in the NHS or any law to facilitate that goal.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that end-of-life care is also part of the NHS? That has always been part of the NHS, and it is not promoting health but enabling a good death.

[Danny Kruger]

No, I fundamentally disagree: end-of-life care is healthcare. It is addresses symptoms and conditions, and it is designed in a way that is completely compatible with the founding principle of the NHS, whereas the Bill—I appreciate the honesty of the drafters in recognising this, even if they do not quite spell it out—and its proposal of an assisted suicide service is not compatible with the founding principle of the NHS. That is why adapting that founding subsection as in the original NHS Act is required. Of course I recognise that end-of-life care is healthcare and completely compatible with what the NHS does. I wish it were more part of the NHS—that is another debate. Palliative care should have been more closely integrated into NHS provision, and it still should be.

I want to tease out a tension among the drafters and advocates of the Bill about exactly how the assisted suicide service will be facilitated and provided. We have got a bit closer to it, but some questions remain, which is regrettable when here we are on the very last day of the Committee’s debate. Last month, the hon. Member for Spen Valley told the Committee:

“This is not assisted suicide by the state. The state is not involved.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 11 February 2025; c. 318.]

I am perplexed by that. I think many members of the public would not agree with that analysis of how the Bill has evolved in Committee. If involving the state in the provision of this service was not intended, then that is not the Bill we have.

In contradiction to that, and I think more accurately, the Minister for Care told us that the promoter’s intent—speaking for the hon. Member for Spen Valley—is

“to ensure that the assisted dying service is available as an integral part of the NHS. Officials are working on amendments to later clauses to establish the operating model for her consideration.” —[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2025; c. 802.]

That is clearly what has happened, and it is where we are now. However, I am sorry to say that I do not feel that the operating model is now clear. We still do not have an impact assessment, we do not know how the Government envisage it working in practice, and important information is still lacking for the debate today. We do not know the possible impact on general practice or medical specialists, nor how it might impact money that is available for palliative care. I hope the Minister can tell us more today about how he envisages the service being implemented, especially in the light of the British Medical Association conference earlier this month, which supported the motion that

“Assisted dying is not a health activity and it must not take place in NHS or other health facilities”.

That is a principle I agree with.

On 5 March, the hon. Member for Spen Valley said:

“there is no expectation that assisted dying would be set up as a private enterprise or service. It would be delivered within the provision of the NHS.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2025; c. 799.]

That now agrees with the Minister—fine, interesting; it is to be an NHS service not to be provided privately. But the new clauses do not rule out private provision, nor any profit making by providers or remuneration of people outside the NHS. Indeed, the new clauses refer to “voluntary assisted dying services”, which suggests the hon. Member for Spen Valley is supportive of services outside those that are NHS commissioned, which will be possible under subsections (1), (3) and (7)(a). That will be in line with comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, who made a very coherent case for private provision of assisted suicide if that is what Parliament chooses to legalise; he said that nothing should prevent someone from opting for private provision. In response, the hon. Member for Spen Valley said:

“This service, like many others, will be delivered through a range of providers”.––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2025; c. 800.]

I remain unclear about the extent to which this is an NHS monopoly, as it were, or whether there will be private provision that is privately paid for, or private provision that is publicly paid for. I would be grateful for the hon. Member’s clarification.

Lastly, on the question of profit, in an article in The Times that appeared to have some briefing behind it, there was a suggestion that there would be a cap on the profit of private companies providing the service, limiting them to “making a reasonable profit”. Again, there is nothing in the new clauses about limitations on providers’ profits. If the hon. Member could clarify how she envisages the private provision of the service, I would be grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

There is also the risk of developing a patchwork of private providers with variable standards. Organisations may develop slightly different practices, guidelines and reputations, which could create an uneven framework, preventing the establishment of best practice across services. I reiterate that that will place the public at risk.

[Dr Opher]

My hon. Friend is making a reasoned speech. The thing is that the way the NHS is delivered is already very complex: for example, GPs are private providers who are on a contract with the NHS. Amending the Bill to completely ban private providers will not in any way enhance it; it will create a situation in which almost no doctors can get involved. We need to keep the private aspect simply so that the NHS can control what is going on, albeit the providers can be from independent organisations.

[Sean Woodcock]

I am afraid I just do not agree. My view is that if we are going to do this, it should be done via the NHS. As somebody who stood on a Labour election platform not too long ago, that is something I stand by.

We know that geography and socioeconomic factors render access to healthcare, especially private healthcare, unequal. In oral evidence, Baroness Kishwer Falkner, head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, and Fazilet Hadi of Disability Rights UK both explained how the impact of the Bill on an unequal society might cause problems. Baroness Falkner said that

“from what one understands, GP provision and general access to healthcare are poorer where demographics are poorer than it is in the better performing parts of the country. One other factor to consider in terms of a postcode lottery is that people in wealthier parts of the country tend to be more highly represented in private healthcare than in public healthcare and use of the NHS. That also impacts their choices and the care they get.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 181, Q235.]

The system must not only be fair, but be seen to be fair. If we had such a system of private provision in place, public trust would almost certainly fall. We do not have to look far to see what happens if these matters go unaddressed. When we have a lack of oversight and accountability, it is the public who suffer. There have been too many scandals in recent history for us not to recognise that reality.

One of the big factors in the Post Office Horizon scandal was that Fujitsu, the supplier of specialist computer software, did not admit when it knew that things were going wrong. I have spent much of my working life in the public sector and I am not saying it is perfect—far from it—but the Horizon scandal is an example that teaches an important lesson. Sometimes private companies will not share information that could mean they lose a lucrative contract. They do not have the same oversight as public authorities, which are ultimately accountable to the Government, to Parliament and, through them, to the public.

We must give the public reason to trust that assisted dying services will have proper oversight; otherwise, the consequences will be felt not just in the provision of assisted dying but in healthcare more generally. Amendment (c) to new clause 36 addresses some of the risks by establishing that voluntary assisted dying services must be provided by a public authority. Furthermore, a body contracted by a public authority to provide the service must be a public authority.

A public authority is defined as:

“A body substantially publicly funded which performs statutory duties, objectives and other activities consistent with central or local governmental functions.”

It is clear that public authorities have stronger mechanisms for transparency and reporting. Requiring assisted dying provision to be through such authorities also places the responsibility firmly with the state. It allows the direct implementation of regulations and guidelines on the provision of assisted dying. Best practice is easier to establish when the regulations apply to the same types of organisations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, because it provides a comparison. We are talking about there potentially being a market for end-of-life services. I do not think that is the way we should be going.

[Dr Opher]

I thank the hon. Lady for her impassioned speech, but we are rather getting off the point. The division between private and NHS provision is spurious in a process that will be delivered by doctors who are working under a code of practice. They will be rewarded in their pay which, as we have said, will be stipulated by the BMA in contracted arrangements with the Government and will be proportionate. The doctors will do the work and get the money for that. That is no different from IVF or anything else. If we accept that the NHS will be the commissioning body and will ensure standards in that way—sorry, I am going on a bit, Ms McVey; I shall now finish—the division between an NHS provider and a private one is spurious.

[Sarah Olney]

The issue is who is commissioning the service. The issue is not the doctors or how they are recompensed for the work that they do, but who is doing the recompensing and what their incentives are. If the process is part of an NHS-provided service where it is agreed that it is a compassionate end of life choice, and where it is properly regulated within the wider NHS service and connects with other NHS services, that is one thing.

If the person commissioning that doctor has any kind of incentive around making a profit—and any profit-making organisation will be incentivised to increase the amount of profits that it makes—then, however carefully regulated, there will be subtle influence, pressure, coercion or persuasion that assisted dying is an option that patients should choose, or possibly not-so-subtle influence, to take the example from the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. Under other circumstances, in an NHS model, that may not have been a solution they would have been persuaded to choose. It is that issue of persuasion and of incentives that really troubles me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

This is a very important debate, and my concern is that there is a naive assumption that the innate goodness of doctors will render them impervious to all the incentives in the system. As the hon. Lady suggests, if it were possible, as I think it is under the Bill, for a profit-making organisation—a company—to set itself up to provide an assisted suicide conveyer belt as a pathway through this process, and to earn money publicly or privately according to the volume of the provision it enables, we are setting up incentives that would corrupt the doctors who would be required to sign it off.

I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire has such an optimistic view of human nature that he thinks that no doctor would respond to the incentives in the way that is clearly enabled through the Bill. There are other medical professionals—ethical doctors—who do respond to incentives, such as those in the cosmetic surgery industry.

[Dr Opher]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Danny Kruger]

I would, but actually I am making an intervention. It may appear that I am making a speech, so I will soon sit down, but I would be interested in the hon. Gentleman’s response to the suggestion that even he —the paragon of virtue that he is—might not be entirely resistant to the economic incentives in the system. That is why we have an NHS that explicitly tries to exclude profit making from the provision of healthcare.

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I do not associate myself with his use of the word “corrupt”; I am absolutely not implying that in any way, and I want to be very clear about that. However, there is a grave risk—even for the most ethical person, if they are offered money to carry out an action that they are inclined to carry out anyway as part of their professional practice—that those incentives drive behaviour that leads to worse outcomes for patients, specifically in relation to assisted dying.

[Dr Opher]

There may be an incentive to review a patient for assisted dying, but there is absolutely no incentive in the Bill to approve assisted dying. The idea that doctors would approve assisted dying for financial reasons is completely spurious.

[Sarah Olney]

As I say, we do not have a model before us that we can fully scrutinise or test for risks, and we will not have the opportunity to propose amendments to address those risks—nor will we at any stage. There is a serious risk about all the different parts of the system, not just the doctors, being incentivised by private profit. My amendment would comprehensively remove that, so it would not be a risk. Given that we cannot fully and properly scrutinise the proposed model, my amendment is the best we can do.

[Dr Opher]

I really want to point out that there is no incentive to agree to assisted dying, only to assess for it. There is no reason for people to be corrupted into agreeing, because it would not mean they would get any more money.

[Sarah Olney]

We do not have the model to scrutinise, and we do not know within that whether the first or second co-ordinating doctor will be paid for their services in carrying out those initial assessments. To say that there is no incentive for making the final decision ignores the fact that people might be incentivised for making those initial decisions, where the professional judgment is required and may differ between doctors. That is why there is a risk.

--- Later in debate ---

“Our concern is the real risk that placing AD within the NHS will communicate the wrong symbolic message when the majority of palliative care is provided through charities.”

[Dr Opher]

Briefly, the hon. Lady says that only 30% of palliative care is funded by the NHS, but that is quite spurious, because everyone who gives palliative care—all doctor time, palliative care consultants, palliative care departments, all GP services, all district nurses—gives it under the NHS. What she must be talking about is social care, which is obviously very different from medical NHS care.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I was quoting written evidence, so I just quoted it, of course, as written.

We should be ashamed if what I have set out is where we end up as a result of this Bill. How would it in any way recognise patient autonomy and give them a real choice? Clearly, it would not. We will end up with patients taking an assisted death because there is no alternative to dying well. If as much effort was put into improving palliative care as has been put into legalising assisted dying, a much greater number of people would be given the dignified, comfortable deaths they rightly deserve. It is a travesty that we find ourselves considering the introduction of assisted dying while hospices are on their knees and patients face a postcode lottery when it comes to receiving adequate end-of-life care. Accordingly, I will vote against new clause 36.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Simon Opher Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank the hon. Member and I will come to that point very soon. I will now make some progress; I will not take any further interventions.

I struggle to see how removing automatic oversight of assisted deaths squares with a commitment to enact legislation with the “strongest safeguards in the world”. By doing so, the Bill sets a lower bar for scrutiny and review, and creates an information deficit. Put another way, we simply do not know what we do not know. Implementing a novel piece of legislation such as this without ensuring the most robust possible scrutiny of deaths taking place under the Act is astonishing. Under the Bill, assisted deaths would be the outlier, as any other intentionally procured death would automatically be reviewed by a coroner. Why should deaths under this legislation be any different?

Requiring automatic scrutiny from a coroner for assisted deaths should not be viewed as an add-on at the end of the process or perhaps just a safety net, although it is that.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rebecca Smith]

No, I have already said that I am not going take any further interventions. I have been very generous with my time.

It is imperative to consider the whole picture, particularly regarding malpractice or coercion—whether that be on the part of medical professionals, families or third parties. In written evidence to the Committee, Dr Rees Johnson, a legal expert from Essex Law School, highlights that, in some cultures,

“decision-making is a collective process involving family and community members.”

--- Later in debate ---

in such culturally sensitive situations. Investigation of assisted deaths by coroners is not a luxury; it is a vital safeguard, without which people will fall through the cracks.

[Dr Opher]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rebecca Smith]

No.

Beyond coercion, automatic inquests provide vital opportunities to identify other critical issues that may not otherwise be picked up. Without a coroner’s inquest, there would be no post-mortem examination. This is not merely an academic point; studies have shown that autopsy reveals that one in four cases have been misdiagnosed. Without this oversight, as His Honour Judge Thomas Teague KC, the former chief coroner, notes, there is

“no certain means of knowing whether the approved substance has led to a quick and painless death, or a lingering and distressing one, or even whether it had failed to cause death altogether and the deceased had been dispatched by manual asphyxiation or some other unlawful means.”

I am not sure whether that could be more clear. The view of experts in this area—both the Royal College of Pathologists and the former chief coroner of England and Wales—is that this Bill’s proposals, as drafted, are not fit for purpose. I strongly urge hon. Members to support my amendment (a) to new clause 15.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Hume]

New clause 15 particularly addresses the role of coroners. Coroners investigate deaths in which there is a reasonable suspicion that the deceased has died a violent or unnatural death, where the cause of death is unknown, or if the deceased died while in custody or state detention. This is not the case with an assisted death, and there would already be strong safeguards in place, including multiple layers of oversight and assessment. The process is cautious, thorough, and heavily safeguarded. There is no need to investigate an assisted death, as it is not unnatural. In this country, it is still a crime to help someone die peacefully and with dignity, even when they are suffering unbearably from a terminal illness.

[Dr Opher]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Alison Hume]

I will make some progress, thank you.

It is still a crime, even when the person is of sound mind and even when it is their deeply considered wish. Anthony wanted a good death—he wanted to die peacefully and with grace, without pain and without profound suffering. He got that in a foreign country, far from home and far from family, because our laws force people like him to make that desperate journey abroad. That is why I support this Bill and, in particular, new clause 15, as there is no need for coroners to investigate an assisted death.

[Alison Hume]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case on behalf of her constituent. New clause 15 is a compassionate and practical clause, ensuring that the Bill works not only for the individual making the choice, but for the families they leave behind. Let us not turn our backs on people like Anthony and Louise; let us not make criminals out of the compassionate. The death of a loved one is always difficult. When someone has gone through the legal and safeguarded process of assisted dying, it is not right that their family should face an unnecessary, potentially lengthy and distressing coroner’s investigation.

[Dr Opher]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Alison Hume]

I am coming to my conclusion. New clause 15 will protect bereaved families such as that of my constituent Anthony, and therefore I urge hon. Members to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

I am very short of time, so I think I had better continue.

Turning to new clause 15, which relates to the role of coroners, if the Bill is passed, assisted dying would be a very strictly regulated process—the choice of an individual; not a death caused by others, but by the individual themselves. As Aneez Esmail has pointed out, this would be the most scrutinised type of death in the country, and it therefore makes no sense to require another legal process at the end when there have already been multiple layers of scrutiny before the death.

[Dr Opher]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ellie Chowns]

I am so sorry, but we are very short of time.

New clause 15 is a compassionate and practical clause. There are strong safeguards already in place, and requiring a coroner’s inquest would go against the spirit of compassion that should be driving us all.

I will briefly turn to amendment 42, tabled by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), which would remove the backstop commencement. Essentially, the amendment would leave it in the hands of the Secretary of State to decide when, or if, the Bill comes into effect. That would go against the will of the House. If the House passes this Bill, it is perfectly reasonable and workable for the detail of it to be worked out within the next four years. We have already doubled the length of time allowed for that to happen. Amendment 42 is effectively a wrecking amendment that seeks to kick the Bill into the long grass. [Interruption.] That would be its effect.

To conclude, I will briefly address the misconception that seems to have informed some of the comments I have heard in today’s debate, which is the assumption that families would want to pressure family members to die quicker. My mum is a specialist palliative care social worker, and she has told me that in all her years of practice she has never experienced that happening. It is the other way around.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Member makes an important point that we have to consider. We must recognise that, as he says, people’s choices are limited by the unfair distribution of wealth, the injustices that disabled people face throughout their life, or the attitudes of the powerful in society towards those who are less fortunate.

[Dr Opher]

If my hon. Friend looks at the statistics, he will see that it is usually the better-off in society who choose assisted dying, not the less well-off.

[Blair McDougall]

I will come to that point shortly.

We have a duty to ask whether the poorest and most vulnerable will be coerced into choosing assisted dying over palliative care because of economic disadvantage. Will they be exploited by those with a financial interest in their choosing to end their life? Will their death become a commodity? If we are really going to pass legislation that allows someone’s death to become a matter of business, we must have full transparency on those financial motivations, and my amendment 15 would require that. If we are really going to pass legislation that allows someone’s death to become a matter of business, we must have full transparency on those financial motivations, and my amendment 15 would require that.

Carers in the private sector are not bad people any more than people working directly in the NHS, but private healthcare operates in a context. The evidence that profit influences the moral choices made in the care and treatment that is already provided in this country is overwhelming; this is not a hypothetical concern. For example, a systematic review published by The BMJ found that private equity ownership of healthcare is associated with lower standards of care. Around the wonderful miracle of IVF there is an industry profiting from people’s desperation as they start life rather than end it. Already, at the end of life—this relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher)—choice in palliative care is limited by economic status, with the wealthy more likely to die a good death than the poor. My amendment seeks to address the fundamental question of whether free choice really is free by bringing into daylight the financial motivations of those involved in individuals’ decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Amendment 15 seeks to recognise that there is a difference in where private providers’ income stream comes from and that that raises moral issues.

[Dr Opher]

Will my hon. Friend accept one more intervention?

[Blair McDougall]

I do not wish to exacerbate your bronchitis, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will continue.

Amendment 15 touches on a fundamental point at the heart of the debate. Disabled people and the sick, in every aspect of their lives, have to fight every day for resources from a state, a market and a society that view them as a drain on finances. Do we honestly believe that at the moment when the most vulnerable are least able to argue for themselves, under the most intense societal and cultural pressure, and at their most expensive, those same public and private sector institutions will succeed in making choice real for them when they have failed to do so throughout the rest of their lives? Even if we stretch credulity and convince ourselves that that will be true in the state sector, can we say that it will be true in the market? I do not believe that the Bill should be passed, but if it is, let us not make it worse by allowing unscrutinised profit from the loss of human beings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 15 and amendment 54, and against new clause 5. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, new clause 15 would not classify a death under the Bill as suspicious or unexpected, so a full coroner’s inquest would not be needed.

If the Bill becomes law, assisted dying would be a legal, strictly regulated and well monitored choice made freely by the individual concerned. To be absolutely clear to hon. Members, it is not assisted suicide. The Bill concerns people who want to live but who, faced with an inevitable, irreversible and terminal diagnosis, want choice over the manner of their death. That is an important choice that removes some of the trauma and anxiety for not only the patients but their family and loved ones. New clause 15 and its consequential amendment 54 will ensure that families who are naturally grieving the loss of their loved one are not needlessly subjected to an invasive coroner’s investigation.

[Dr Opher]

It is important to realise that if there are any suspicions around an assisted death, a coroner can still be involved. The new clause does not exclude that, but it stops the automatic referral to a coroner.

[Lloyd Hatton]

I share my hon. Friend’s sentiment. I firmly believe that we should protect bereaved families against such a distressing ordeal happening automatically, particularly when the process, as set out in the Bill, will already be legal and transparent.

With that in mind, it makes practical sense to support new clause 15. If we pass legislation to permit assisted dying with the full weight of the law behind it, we must also respect that choice in the way that we classify and record such deaths. Those deaths would not be in any way unexpected or suspicious, so to classify them as such would simply be inaccurate.

As has already been touched on in great detail today, if the Bill is passed, it would implement the most robust assisted dying framework anywhere in the world. It already includes multiple layers of oversight. In my view, the process is cautious, thorough and robustly safeguarded. A retrospective investigation would be to duplicate the process, and risks suggesting wrongdoing when none has occurred.