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

Debate between Simon Opher and Danny Kruger

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to move amendment 527, in clause 40, page 24, line 14, at end insert

“provided that such remuneration is not structured in a manner where it would be greater as a result of the registered medical practitioner approving the request.”

This is the point at which the season of consensus is over; I am back to opposing. Amendment 527 would insist that any remuneration for taking part in assisted dying on behalf of the medical profession would not enable a system whereby a medic, practice or private provider would be remunerated according to approving the different stages of the process. I am trying to prevent the provision of any incentive in the system for moving people through it.

We know that there can be a paid private service delivered under the Bill. The concern is that we will create perverse incentives in the system that will prejudice objective decision making. I take the points about the disinterested good faith of all medics; nevertheless, I do not want to put them in danger of feeling the pressure of perverse incentives. We must recognise the importance of keeping absolute financial neutrality in the operation of the Bill. There would be significant ethical red flags about a system that essentially enabled performance-related pay tied to approving requests for assisted dying, let alone paying doctors to provide referrals to a co-ordinating doctor. At the moment, I do not see that the Bill prevents that.

Even if there were no such danger, I am not sure that patients would buy it. From the point of view of trust in the medical profession, we must bear in mind that any doctor could be involved. Any doctor could either raise the suggestion or be required to signpost a patient who raised it themselves—the whole of the NHS is essentially implicated in the proposed system. As the hon. Member for Spen Valley has reiterated today, she wants assisted dying to be an integral part of the NHS. Let us protect the NHS from the distrust of patients by ensuring that financial incentives are not in the mix for these life and death decisions.

[Dr Opher]

Although I see the hon. Gentleman’s ideas and points, what will be paid for here is the assessment. I know no medical process where the outcome is paid for, rather than the assessment. Although I can see that his concerns are real, I do not believe—

[Danny Kruger]

I am sorry to cut off the hon. Gentleman mid-flow, but he says he cannot think of an instance when the outcome will be paid for. It would perhaps not be about paying for the outcome—paying for death; for a dead body—but there could well be payments for the process leading up to that. That is the way medical payments work at the moment. Someone might get paid for the assessment, the second assessment, or the administration of the drugs. People do get paid in the NHS for delivering a treatment. Why would that not be the case here?

[Dr Opher]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but that is just not the way that medicine works. The doctor is under a code of practice, so if he is seen to lie about assessment of capacity or coercion, for example, to enable him to approve the decision and then go on to assist the dying, he would be well outside that code. He would be referred to the General Medical Council and, in such a case, struck off the medical register. I understand the reason for the amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman, but I do not feel that it is necessary in this part of the primary legislation.

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

Debate between Simon Opher and Danny Kruger

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 ---

[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.

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

Debate between Simon Opher and Danny Kruger

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

I agree.

[Dr Opher]

Actually, if we did an autopsy on any person who has died, pulmonary oedema would almost certainly be found because that is what happens in death—the heart stops and the lungs fill with fluid. I would also like to correct the idea that there is neuromuscular paralysis with pentobarbital. There is no way that barbiturates act in that way. All they do is sedate and put the person to sleep, and death comes afterwards.

[Danny Kruger]

I was not suggesting that pentobarbital has a paralytic effect. Often in assisted dying, a paralytic is administered first as part of the cocktail of drugs. Subsequently, we discover that while the patient may have appeared entirely calm, sleeping peacefully, significant trauma may have been occurring beneath the surface.

I defer to the hon. Member’s knowledge, but my understanding from the scientific evidence I have read, and that medics have given to me, is that the extent to which people executed by lethal injection, by pentobarbital, have their lungs fill with fluid is peculiar—it is remarkable. They effectively drown beneath their peaceful exterior.

I intend to press amendment 464 to a vote, and I intend to support other amendments in this group. Although I support the aspiration of amendment 532 to make provision for what to do in the event of a procedure’s failure, I think it gives too much leeway to the Secretary of State, so I will oppose that amendment. I think the amendments that the hon. Member for York Central and I have tabled are preferable.

To make the obvious case for those amendments, and as I said in a previous debate, there are three choices in the event of failure. The first is to ignore the plain signs of distress, of things going wrong and of the patient suffering, which is clearly a failure of the doctor’s duty of care. The second is to expedite the death, which we have decided would be illegal under the Bill. Therefore, the only option is to revive the patient and escalate treatment, rather than actively or passively facilitate their death.

I hope Members will agree that, on the rare occasions when assisted suicide goes wrong, it is right that the patient is immediately revived and taken to hospital, or for the doctor to take whatever action is necessary. I am interested to understand why those amendments should not be supported.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

I thank my hon. Friend for his sensitive and clear worry. But it is important to note that we would not in any circumstances try to do something that would finish someone’s life after they had been given their self-take medicine, because that is against the law. In the Bill we have made a clear distinction between the doctor—a euthanasian, if you like—taking the life, and the patient taking medicine that finishes life. What we need to do is simply support the patient. If, as my hon. Friend suggests, they are in pain we would give them a morphine drip, which is in common use in terminal care. I absolutely respect what he says, but the same treatment principles would be in place as in terminal care.

[Danny Kruger]

Even in terminal care, when it is understood that a patient is close to death, doctors would surely not overlook a patient for whom an assisted death is clearly failing. The hon. Gentleman suggests that it would be inappropriate to—and that he would never—call an ambulance, or send a patient to A&E; I wonder whether he also means that he would never seek to revive a patient or bring them back to life, as it were, if they were experiencing complications. To his often-repeated suggestion that there is no difference between this and normal medical treatment, there is an enormous difference. Doctors administer lethal drugs to a patient, and are then also supposed to be somehow caring for the patient in the traditional way that doctors should. These things are inherently incompatible, and there is a choice between the two : is the doctor helping the patient to die, or is he helping them to live? That questions remains, and does he not acknowledge that there will be circumstances where it would be appropriate to revive the patient, and seek to support them as if they were living?

[Dr Opher]

I almost agreed with the hon. Gentleman earlier, when he asked at one point, should we not just leave this to doctors?

One of the key things the hon. Gentleman said is that the doctor administers the drug. This is self-administered, first of all, so that is a very clear line. However, also, in a case of terminal care—this is what I am trying to get across to the Committee—we know the patient is dying, and therefore if they are becoming worse we simply do things to make them comfortable, and we do not try to revive them, because they are dying. It is important that we realise that this is a very different medical situation from normal care, and that it actually needs very different skills as a doctor. Here, a doctor is not trying to prolong life, but trying to make a death as comfortable as possible.

That is why I support the Bill—because I think it will enhance a comfortable death. I wanted to make it clear that that is normal practice now in terminal care: we do not revive a patient with a terminal diagnosis who is in terminal care, but we make them comfortable.

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

Debate between Simon Opher and Danny Kruger

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

All right. I regret my failure to assuage the anxieties of the hon. Member.

Let me explain why it was so important that we had a judicial stage. My complaints were never against the principle, but always against the practicalities, for the reasons I have just given and will go on to say more about. The value of a judicial stage is that it gave the doctors certainty and, indeed, protection for the process they were responsible for.

I want to cite the evidence from the Medical Defence Union, which provides doctors with insurance against claims of medical negligence. Responding to the suggestion that judicial involvement could be replaced by some other decision-making body, it stated:

“The MDU strongly rejects this assertion. The involvement of the judiciary is essential. Its absence leaves doctors unduly exposed. Media reports suggest that an alternative safeguard is being mooted. No ‘independent panel’, however so constituted, can replace the legal authority of a course of action sealed and ratified by a judge. Doctors deserve that certainty when relying upon this Bill to provide the very best for their patients at the most delicate moment of their duty of care.”

I will also cite the evidence that we received from Ruth Hughes, a senior barrister with 17 years of experience in mental capacity law. I cannot say that she is a King’s counsel because she does not become one until later this month—congratulations to her. She stated in her written evidence that

“if there is no judicial declaration because the judicial safeguard is not enacted, then there is a risk that the estates of persons who have been assisted to die will be sent into turmoil. This is due to the possibility of arguments being made that beneficiaries of the estate have ‘influenced’ the person into obtaining the assisted death.”

She said that

“even if there is no conviction but another person asserts there was ‘influence’…not undue influence”—

and certainly not coercion, which is banned by the Bill—

“but a lower standard of ‘influence’ by a beneficiary of the estate…then the personal representatives will be advised to obtain directions from the Court as to how to administer the estate.”

Her point is that, even if the bar for the assisted death is met, in terms of influence, coercion and so on, the testamentary or probate challenges that the estates will then go into are considerable.

The fact is that somebody has to be the judge—somebody has to take legal responsibility for the decision that is made. In the common law system, we do not give powers of life and death to panels; we give them to legally constituted bodies with judicial authority. To cite the MDU again:

“To put it plainly, without judicial involvement someone will have to take responsibility for the legality of the action.”

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

Again, I thank the hon. Member for quoting all this, but does it mean that he supports the original clause 12?

[Danny Kruger]

I will be voting for clause 12 to stand part, because I think it is an essential safeguard, but it is not strong enough. There are all sorts of problems with it around capacity and the way it is constituted, and I will come on now to how I think it can be improved.

[Dr Opher]

indicated dissent.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman does not seem impressed by my straight answer to his straight question. Yes, I do support clause 12. I think we should strengthen it, in the ways that I will now explain. We do need a court, and I think Parliament was right to demand this, or to support it. We have a comparable model in the Court of Protection, which applies when there are disputed decisions about whether to withdraw life support. By the way, I mention to hon. Members who have referred to this—just to go back to an earlier debate—that, with the Court of Protection, one is obliged to notify the family. So even there, when there is a decision to withdraw life support, the family is notified, but we have decided not to notify the family under this Bill. But anyway, the Court of Protection does provide an appropriate comparison.

Whether we are talking about the Court of Protection or the High Court, either would work if the system was set up right. The crucial thing, in my view, is that it needs a proper adversarial arrangement so that the judge can actually judge. The way that judges work in this country, under the common law system, is that they hear arguments and then make decisions. It has been suggested that there could be a role for the official solicitor in acting “for the state”, as it were—or indeed “for society”, perhaps, or however we would want to put it—to perform the role of challenging the application and taking responsibility for presenting any alternative pieces of information that the judge should consider.

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

Debate between Simon Opher and Danny Kruger

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

All right. I regret my failure to assuage the anxieties of the hon. Member.

Let me explain why it was so important that we had a judicial stage. My complaints were never against the principle, but always against the practicalities, for the reasons I have just given and will go on to say more about. The value of a judicial stage is that it gave the doctors certainty and, indeed, protection for the process they were responsible for.

I want to cite the evidence from the Medical Defence Union, which provides doctors with insurance against claims of medical negligence. Responding to the suggestion that judicial involvement could be replaced by some other decision-making body, it stated:

“The MDU strongly rejects this assertion. The involvement of the judiciary is essential. Its absence leaves doctors unduly exposed. Media reports suggest that an alternative safeguard is being mooted. No ‘independent panel’, however so constituted, can replace the legal authority of a course of action sealed and ratified by a judge. Doctors deserve that certainty when relying upon this Bill to provide the very best for their patients at the most delicate moment of their duty of care.”

I will also cite the evidence that we received from Ruth Hughes, a senior barrister with 17 years of experience in mental capacity law. I cannot say that she is a King’s counsel because she does not become one until later this month—congratulations to her. She stated in her written evidence that

“if there is no judicial declaration because the judicial safeguard is not enacted, then there is a risk that the estates of persons who have been assisted to die will be sent into turmoil. This is due to the possibility of arguments being made that beneficiaries of the estate have ‘influenced’ the person into obtaining the assisted death.”

She said that

“even if there is no conviction but another person asserts there was ‘influence’…not undue influence”—

and certainly not coercion, which is banned by the Bill—

“but a lower standard of ‘influence’ by a beneficiary of the estate…then the personal representatives will be advised to obtain directions from the Court as to how to administer the estate.”

Her point is that, even if the bar for the assisted death is met, in terms of influence, coercion and so on, the testamentary or probate challenges that the estates will then go into are considerable.

The fact is that somebody has to be the judge—somebody has to take legal responsibility for the decision that is made. In the common law system, we do not give powers of life and death to panels; we give them to legally constituted bodies with judicial authority. To cite the MDU again:

“To put it plainly, without judicial involvement someone will have to take responsibility for the legality of the action.”

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

Again, I thank the hon. Member for quoting all this, but does it mean that he supports the original clause 12?

[Danny Kruger]

I will be voting for clause 12 to stand part, because I think it is an essential safeguard, but it is not strong enough. There are all sorts of problems with it around capacity and the way it is constituted, and I will come on now to how I think it can be improved.

[Dr Opher]

indicated dissent.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman does not seem impressed by my straight answer to his straight question. Yes, I do support clause 12. I think we should strengthen it, in the ways that I will now explain. We do need a court, and I think Parliament was right to demand this, or to support it. We have a comparable model in the Court of Protection, which applies when there are disputed decisions about whether to withdraw life support. By the way, I mention to hon. Members who have referred to this—just to go back to an earlier debate—that, with the Court of Protection, one is obliged to notify the family. So even there, when there is a decision to withdraw life support, the family is notified, but we have decided not to notify the family under this Bill. But anyway, the Court of Protection does provide an appropriate comparison.

Whether we are talking about the Court of Protection or the High Court, either would work if the system was set up right. The crucial thing, in my view, is that it needs a proper adversarial arrangement so that the judge can actually judge. The way that judges work in this country, under the common law system, is that they hear arguments and then make decisions. It has been suggested that there could be a role for the official solicitor in acting “for the state”, as it were—or indeed “for society”, perhaps, or however we would want to put it—to perform the role of challenging the application and taking responsibility for presenting any alternative pieces of information that the judge should consider.

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

Debate between Simon Opher and Danny Kruger

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling amendment 362. Does he accept that Australia, for example, has a very different regime from America? In Australia, people are given pentobarbital, which has not failed on any occasion—in any of the 2,500 treatments since assisted dying was legalised. In America, people are not allowed to use that; instead, they use another cocktail of drugs, which is not as ideal and can have other side effects. May I also say that I am not sure whether it is totally relevant to discuss the problems of a drug given in America in this context? We are discussing just putting down in law what the doctor is obliged to say to the patient.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those points because he helps me to direct my argument. It is essential to discuss the evidence from abroad about the complications that arise from assisted suicide, but the evidence is very patchy: we know what we know, but we don’t know much. There is a complete dearth of evidence, including in Australia. When Australians gave evidence to the Committee, it was put to them, accurately, that there is a great lack of adequate data gathering in Australia, as in other countries too. So when he says there have been no complications in Australia, what he means is that there have been no reports of complications in Australia. As we always need to point out, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Danny Kruger]

Let us not rehash the conversations that we had in the evidence sessions, but I would advise Members to review those conversations. Indeed, there is further publicly available evidence, which I am happy to share, of the problems with data collection in Australia, as in other countries. To the point of the hon. Member for Stroud about the evidence of complications that arise in other jurisdictions being irrelevant to our discussions, because of the lack of clarity in the Bill about what drugs would be used to bring about the assisted suicides that we are proposing to legalise, all we can do is rely on evidence from abroad, and I will insist on doing so.

As well as questions about complications and side effects, there is also a crucial question about how long it takes to die. In Canada, a study demonstrated that in 5% of cases, patients experienced a prolonged time to death. Another study showed that 50% of cases in Canada with available data—again, there is a lack of data—were unsuccessful within 60 minutes. It is clearly common in other countries for death to take up to or more than an hour.

The Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers—the people who do it—acknowledged that patients who ingest assisted suicide drugs can experience burning, nausea, vomiting and regurgitation. I am not saying that that always happens, or that it happens in the majority of cases, but it clearly happens. It is therefore appropriate for patients to be properly informed of those risks, if they are associated with the drugs that will be used. We do not know what those are going to be at this stage.

In the Netherlands, where assisted dying or assisted suicide has been legal for 20 years, a third of people with assisted suicide deaths experience some adverse symptoms such as pain, restlessness, shortness of breath, secretions, nausea and vomiting—that is, a third of people experienced some of those distressing side effects as they died, so it is very far from a guarantee of a pain-free death. It is vital that people considering an assisted death are aware of those possible effects, in addition to the primary effect of the drugs which is, of course, to kill them.

There is also a question about the method of administration. People should know that where regimes use the intravenous route of a short-acting anaesthetic, that is also not without problems. People would understand, and potentially argue for, having an anaesthetic as the first part of the cocktail of drugs that will be administered, but evidence from abroad demonstrates that the anaesthetic induction agent, which is usually propofol, a drug that puts people to sleep before surgery, can wear off rapidly in some people, particularly in younger patients, those who are less ill and those who are larger in size.

In around two thirds of assisted deaths with administrations that use that technique, that anaesthetic is rapidly followed by a paralysing agent. The patient cannot then move a muscle and, unable to breathe at all, they die of asphyxia. Unfortunately, there has been no monitoring of patients while they are given those drugs to ascertain whether they regain consciousness as they die. They cannot move a muscle, so they cannot signal distress. We are unclear what the experience of the dying person is beneath the apparent calm that has been induced in them by the paralytic drug that they have been given.

We do know, however, that similar combinations have been used in judicial executions. Post mortems have shown, as reported in The Lancet in 2005, that the level of anaesthetic induction agent in the blood at the time of death was lower than that required for surgery in 88% of executed inmates. Shockingly, in 43%, the concentrations were consistent with awareness, meaning they may have suffered during the execution.

[Dr Opher]

The hon. Gentleman is bringing up lots of rather horrible stories about assisted death. That is why, in Australia, Switzerland and Holland, they have decided, instead of using the regime that he is talking about, to use pentobarbital. At 15 grams, that has not had any failures—no one has woken up. The only real side effect that people complain of before they go to sleep, which happens very quickly, is that it is very bitter. One of the reasons why Dignitas uses it is that it is so effective and it does not have those effects. I would push back on some of those scare stories.

[Danny Kruger]

I am afraid to say that the whole debate about assisted dying is replete with scare stories. The hon. Gentleman says that they are descriptions of horrible events, but that is the situation that we are dealing with. We are here to try to pass legislation that is designed to avert horrible deaths. I am absolutely committed to that as well, but the evidence from abroad shows that people can also have a horrible death with assisted dying.

The hon. Gentleman points to Australia, but the evidence from Western Australia in particular is that over 4% of assisted deaths reported complications. He might be right that it is a better regime than that used in the United States, but even there complications occur. We do not know yet what the regime will be here, but I am alerting the Committee to the genuine danger of an assisted dying regime that induces very unpleasant results for patients.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

We are not doing that in situations of terminal care—we are allowing someone to die. We are very experienced in allowing people to die. I have done it for 25 years. It is not a new skill just because we have the assisted dying element. We deal with the situation as it arises.

[Danny Kruger]

rose—

[Dr Opher]

I had virtually finished, but I give way.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a key point. The hon. Member for Bradford West is absolutely right: surely the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that there is a difference between allowing somebody to die and giving them lethal drugs that make them die. I am sure he would acknowledge the practical, if not the moral, distinction between the two. He says he has lots of experience of helping people to die; has he ever had experience of watching somebody die after administering them lethal drugs? No.

[Dr Opher]

No, I have not, because that is currently illegal—this Committee is about changing that—but I have sat with patients who have slowly died. It is not about whether we get an ambulance; we know we do not do that. We are allowing the patient to die, and if something happens that involves having to help them, we just do it. We do not need to specify that in the Bill: it is part of normal medical practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am afraid there is a huge degree of subjectivity throughout the Bill, and we are putting an enormous obligation on doctors to use their best judgment. However, I think it is right to stipulate more clearly that it is appropriate, in general, to inform patients’ families. Leaving the vague term “appropriate” essentially implies that it is either/or—that it is a 50:50 choice whether they do so. So it is important to specify that the expectation is that they should do so. Of course, there will be circumstances in which that would not be the right thing to do, but as the amendments make clear, they should explain that clearly if they are not going to do so.

A doctor might hesitate to suggest a discussion with family if they suspect that there are strained relationships within it. My concern is that, without clear guidance, that judgment could be inconsistent or legally challenged. The doctor might know the next of kin and believe that they would try to stop the patient from ending their life. We have heard quite often the concern about the family being some sort of coercive force, trying to prevent people from fulfilling their autonomous choice to end their life, and that we should put in place barriers to stop families trying to dissuade their loved one from assisted suicide. We heard that repeatedly, particularly from the Australian witnesses.

My concern—this goes specifically to certain communities within our country—is that doctors from individualistic cultures, which we have in western Europe and North America, would prioritise personal autonomy. They would deem it inappropriate to suggest family involvement, viewing that as an intrusion on the patient’s rights. We need to state clearly that that is not the expectation and that the expectation is that they should consider involving the family in the discussion.

My concern is also about an exaggerated respect for medical confidentiality. As the Committee knows, my belief is that this is not a healthcare treatment at all, but if it is to be regarded as such, we should not assume that medical confidentiality applies in an absolute sense. There are specific differences between this so-called medical treatment and others, which do justify an override of the assumption of total medical confidentiality. It is therefore appropriate, as in certain other medical procedures, that family members should be involved.

I want to cite the written evidence from Dr Rosemarie Anthony-Pillai, who pointed out that clause 9

“lays bare the reality that in trying to, rightly, diminish any accusation of coercion or family disagreement, this Bill will lead many to a lonely death.”

She also said:

“Families/loved ones finding out only after the event how the person died will have its own bereavement issues that this Bill in no way seeks to consider.”

I also cite the written evidence we had from AtaLoss, which is a UK charity dedicated to ensuring that bereaved people can access support. It said that discovering the decision that somebody has had help to take their own life without prior warning

“can replicate the distress often associated with sudden or suicide-related deaths, thereby intensifying bereavement trauma and potential suicide contagion.”

That is a very significant threat. We will not rehash the argument about whether suicide increases in countries with assisted suicide, but my strong view, from the evidence, is that it does.

In terms of the patient’s safety, if the process is kept secret even from those who know the patient well, the assessing doctors and the panel will be asking very difficult questions about the patient’s feelings and circumstances partly blindfolded. If a patient is in a controlling relationship, they and the person abusing them are not going to volunteer to the doctor or the panel that there is any pressure going on—indeed, the patient may not even understand it to be pressure. It is very common for an abusive partner to try to isolate the victim from their close friends and family. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) wrote recently about how this has come up in her constituency. The ex-husband of her constituent’s sister reappeared on the scene, charmed and isolated this woman, and got her to change her will in his favour. That is a technique of coercive control. Some level of required notification to the wider family would make it much harder for a controlling partner to push someone through this process without it being exposed.

It was made clear earlier today that the Bill’s supporters do not want any hard-edged reasons that count as bad reasons to die to be stated in the Bill—they do not want it asked at all why someone wants to have an assisted death. As it stands, the doctors and the panel would have to approve the death as long as it was the patient’s clear, settled and informed wish, but involvement of those who know the patient well might demonstrate that it was not clear, settled or informed. They may have regularly gone through patches of feeling unloved and unsupported all their life, and that could change. That is information that only the wider family would know.

To conclude, there is real suffering hereto—as I have said, nobody exists in a vacuum. I want to reference the opinion of Judge Elósegui in the European Court of Human Rights. Her opinion was a partial dissent in the Mortier case, which has been discussed before. She said:

“it should be underlined that it cannot be said in an exhaustive way that the principle of autonomy always and at all costs has primacy over the other three principles of bioethics. In particular, we must take into account the consequences of our actions on the rest of the family unit and on our circle of friends.”

That is highly relevant. If we see cases where somebody dies by assisted suicide, and the first thing their child or parent knows about it is they are told to come and collect the body, that will be a scandal. That has happened in other countries, and the Mortier case is a case in point.

I mentioned other cases in which it is obligatory to consult and inform family members. At the moment, that is what happens at the Court of Protection with much less serious applications. Practice directive 9B requires doctors to notify

“at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified”.

That is in the case of organ donation and other procedures. Families are required to be notified, and an indicative list is given, which is supposed to be worked through in order—spouses, people who live with as a spouse, parents, children and so on. The authorities are to jump along through that list, again with some discretion given to them.

To end, on the standard guidance referred to in judgments on that procedure, the judgement of Senior Judge Lush in the Court of Human Rights included the observation that the decision not to notify someone who would otherwise be entitled to be notified is not something that just affects the applicant. It is not just about their interests; there is a wider concern for the whole of society and indeed the family. That is why I support the amendment.

[Dr Opher]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central for tabling the amendment. The crucial word that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said in all that was “should”. It is really important that people are strongly encouraged to discuss this with their families. Clause 9(2)(f) states that

“in so far as the assessing doctor considers it appropriate, advise the person to consider discussing the request with their next of kin and other persons they are close to.”

I totally support all that the hon. Member said: the family should always be involved in every decision. However, in the way we practice medicine in this country, if a patient has capacity—if they are not under a section under the Mental Health Act, for example, and can show that they have capacity—they can make decisions about their own healthcare. That involves whether they tell their family.

I agree that not to tell the family is not the best thing and not something I would say that the patient should do, but that is in their remit. It is important because, if we change that, we get rid of all the basis and the foundation of medical care and consent in this country. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member, and I am a strong supporter of the family—I also think that in almost every situation the family will be involved—but the patient does not have to tell the family. That must remain part of their decision.

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

Debate between Simon Opher and Danny Kruger

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- 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.

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

Debate between Simon Opher and Danny Kruger

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s point, and it is very logical that it should only be in the case of doubt, but does he not recognise that in the case of organ donation, it is mandatory? If people have this proper assessment when they are giving an organ, why should they not be asked to have one if they propose to give their life?

[Dr Opher]

That is an interesting point, but we are not discussing organ donation, and we are dealing in a different environment here; the patients we are talking about are about to die, and all we are giving them is the right to control the moment and manner of that death. I acknowledge that using a psychiatrist in organ donation has its benefits, but in this service, getting every patient—who, for example, are frail and ill by definition, because they are about to die—to see a psychiatrist is frankly neither applicable nor appropriate.

[Dr Opher]

I think it would create a barrier. We need to make sure that we deliver legislation that does what we are trying to do, which is to enable someone with a terminal illness, who has full capacity, to make a decision about the end of their life.

[Danny Kruger]

It is a very important point. Yes, we are talking about those people, but we are also talking about a different category of people who have a terminal diagnosis of six months or more, and may only be reasonably expected to die within six months. I am not just talking about people at the very end of their life, who are at death’s door; we are talking about people who qualify for the Bill, which is a much larger category of people, so it is appropriate to require them to do this.

[Dr Opher]

I agree with all of this. I think psychological assessment is incredibly important in all patients, and I personally specialise in it from a primary care basis. But we are suggesting here that the two other doctors have no ability to do any sort of psychological assessment, and that is simply not true.

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

Debate between Simon Opher and Danny Kruger

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s point, and it is very logical that it should only be in the case of doubt, but does he not recognise that in the case of organ donation, it is mandatory? If people have this proper assessment when they are giving an organ, why should they not be asked to have one if they propose to give their life?

[Dr Opher]

That is an interesting point, but we are not discussing organ donation, and we are dealing in a different environment here; the patients we are talking about are about to die, and all we are giving them is the right to control the moment and manner of that death. I acknowledge that using a psychiatrist in organ donation has its benefits, but in this service, getting every patient—who, for example, are frail and ill by definition, because they are about to die—to see a psychiatrist is frankly neither applicable nor appropriate.

[Dr Opher]

I think it would create a barrier. We need to make sure that we deliver legislation that does what we are trying to do, which is to enable someone with a terminal illness, who has full capacity, to make a decision about the end of their life.

[Danny Kruger]

It is a very important point. Yes, we are talking about those people, but we are also talking about a different category of people who have a terminal diagnosis of six months or more, and may only be reasonably expected to die within six months. I am not just talking about people at the very end of their life, who are at death’s door; we are talking about people who qualify for the Bill, which is a much larger category of people, so it is appropriate to require them to do this.

[Dr Opher]

I agree with all of this. I think psychological assessment is incredibly important in all patients, and I personally specialise in it from a primary care basis. But we are suggesting here that the two other doctors have no ability to do any sort of psychological assessment, and that is simply not true.

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

Debate between Simon Opher and Danny Kruger

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.

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

Debate between Simon Opher and Danny Kruger

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

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

Debate between Simon Opher and Danny Kruger

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 (Fifteenth sitting)

Debate between Simon Opher and Danny Kruger

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

Surely the hon. Member is describing exactly why we need the Bill. If they are given a diagnosis, at that point they can apply for assisted death. We know that there are statutory time limits built in, which I believe will take us to at least 21 days from the diagnosis. The danger is suicide in patients, which is what we are trying to avoid. Approximately 600 patients with terminal illness commit suicide in this country each year, and the Bill will prevent that by allowing them to apply for assisted death.

[Danny Kruger]

I hope that the hon. Member is not suggesting that all 600 would be averted by the Bill. He might be right that some would be, and I recognise that. However, the purpose of amendment 270 is to ensure that people who might be suicidal receive an assessment, whether they are inclined to apply for assisted death, if it is legal, or to take their own life in an unassisted way. If they expressed a wish under the clauses of the Bill to have an assisted death, they would have proper psychosocial assessment and proper steps would be taken to ask, if we are prepared to make this distinction, “Is it just that they are suicidal and not wanting an assisted death?” I find the distinction difficult to parse logically, but if that is the distinction that we are making, let us put it into the Bill and ensure that people are properly cared for in that very dangerous time after they get a terrible diagnosis.

I would like to quote from the written evidence that we received from a member of the Pathfinders Neuromuscular Alliance, which is a user-led charity for those with muscle-weakening conditions such as muscular dystrophy. This person said:

“I’ve been there, I’ve wanted to die, and I’ve been in the position where I would take that option if it was given to me”—

not if it was not. Interestingly, he would have taken that option if it was given to him, rather than suggesting that he was going to take his own life anyway. The quote continues,

“but looking back I can see I was depressed and now I’m so glad that I didn’t take that option.”

At the moment, the Bill does not require anyone to explore these psychosocial factors, and although the person can be referred to a psychiatrist—and, if we go on to accept the amendment, we would ensure that they must be if the doctor concludes that there is doubt—I do want to make a point about referrals. There is an assumption that the doctor will refer the person to a psychiatrist, but that will only happen if they have done their assessment well. We are assuming that they will do the assessment well, but we have heard repeatedly that such assessments are often not done well. I welcome the coming amendment—amendment 6—that says that if the doctor concludes that there is doubt about capacity, they “must” refer. That would be a step forward, but it is not sufficient. Even the psychiatrist will only answer the question, “Is this person able to make a decision?” That does not address any of these other factors.

In Oregon—we refer often to Oregon, and although this Bill is supposed to be the safest in the world, it is not as safe as Oregon in this respect—the doctors may refer the patient for counselling if the patient

“may be suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment”.

To conclude on this point, psychosocial care is fundamental to good end-of-life care. Members of the Committee have said that palliative care and assisted dying can complement each other; this assessment should be part of that picture, and it needs to come before the first declaration, because once somebody has signed that declaration they are already on the pathway—and there will not be an obligation on them to receive palliative care advice either, because we rejected that amendment. Amendment 270 provides for people’s needs to be met at the first opportunity.

Lastly, on the question of doctor-initiated conversations, I quote Professor Brassington, who submitted evidence to the Committee:

“In normal medical practice, the patient approaches the medic with a problem, and the medic suggests possible courses of action, not all of which would have been considered by the patient. The patient permits further action. But it is implicit that the practitioner who makes the suggestions thinks them good, and the patient is entitled to think that the practitioner endorses them all.”

In a normal scenario, the doctor would think about what is good for the patient. To raise an option is to endorse and encourage it, perhaps as one among a number of other options. It is to suggest that this is a good option—it might not be the one the doctor thinks is the best, but it is a good option for the patient; otherwise, they would not raise it. They can only make a recommendation for options that they consider would be appropriate to the situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am absolutely sure that is right, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that important point. For anybody, but particularly for the vulnerable and those in distress, as people are towards the end of their life, for those who have had a terrible diagnosis, and for those who feel a burden and recognise that the coming months might not be good for them or their family, of course the statement of this option has an implication—even if it is presented as neutrally as possible. It might well be received as a communication that the doctor is actually trying to say, “You are going to have a terrible death”, but does not want to say it out loud. It could be taken in all sorts of ways by patients.

[Dr Opher]

That is actually not right. In a medical consultation, a doctor gives a number of different options. A small example is that I might suggest to someone that there is an option of taking an antidepressant. Now, it is the patient’s choice as to whether they do that. My role is to give every option that is available, and to encourage and help the patient to make their own personal choice. That is a very basic tenet of clinical care.

[Danny Kruger]

I recognise that, but I repeat that by offering antidepressants, he is suggesting to his patients that it may well be the right thing for them to do. He puts in front of his patients a menu of options, with a degree of advice according to his expertise, but if assisted dying is on the menu, that is because assisted dying is regarded as something, as it were, that is healthy to eat. He would not put something on the menu that he did not think they should take. Everything on the menu is edible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I recognise that. I should certainly address you, Mrs Harris.

[Dr Opher]

I would like to make a speech that answers some of these points, but I will intervene if that is more appropriate. What would the hon. Gentleman prefer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

I completely agree. Interestingly, I am on a journey here. To begin with, I thought these were good amendments. I thought that we must not introduce certain things—the doctor being a powerful person and so on. I then asked a lot of my colleagues, and they said, “No, no—we’ve got to clarify the law. We do not want this blurring of the law.” I have actually moved in the other direction, and I think it is essential that we do not bring in these amendments. As my hon. Friends said, the BMA has support the subject being raised and there have been changes to the law in Victoria because the gag clause simply does not work. We need to protect patients and, in my opinion, these amendments are not a good way of doing that. The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley made such a compelling argument against those amendments, so I will not go on about them.

On Amendment 278, I actually agree with the Member for East Wiltshire, but probably for different reasons. Again, if we introduce the amendment, if the doctor does not see that a patient has said that they do not want assisted dying and they bring it up, the Bill will potentially criminalise their behaviour. I feel that would not work and it would complicate the law.

I agree with amendments 319 and 320, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, which concern age. They would be a good and—alongside his amendment 339—functional change to the Bill.

Amendment 270 is about psychological assessment. As far as I can read in the Bill, as part of the panel process, which we have not yet discussed, there will be a psychological and psychiatric assessment of the patient. Also, when assessing someone with a terminal illness, most doctors will assess their mental health.

[Danny Kruger]

It is very important that we do have psychiatrists involved. In that sense, the addition of the panel may be welcome, although I regret that it is replacing the judicial stage—but, crucially, it comes right at the end of the process, and as I understand it, there will be no obligation on the panel to meet the patient. That is in no way a psychiatric assessment, let alone one at the right moment.

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

Debate between Simon Opher and Danny Kruger

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

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

Debate between Simon Opher and Danny Kruger

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.

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

Debate between Simon Opher and Danny Kruger

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. However, as we discussed earlier, the terms of the Suicide Act 1961—which explicitly include the term “encouragement”—include pressure. The understanding and interpretation of “encouragement” include the effect of the encouragement, which is that someone has been persuaded by a third party to take this step, whereas the principle of the Bill is that people are acting entirely autonomously.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

This is a really interesting discussion, but it misses the point of how clinical people assess coercion. What we really do not want is a tick-list saying, “Confirm that you have not been encouraged” and so on, on a piece of paper. It is a much more open discussion. To get to real coercion, we have to leave it completely open. We follow the flow of the patient’s conversation. I do not think that any particular words will help in that context.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for stating so clearly the ultra-libertarian position: “Leave it all open; trust the doctors—allow them to conclude if there has been any problem.” The implication of the Bill is that some questions will be asked, appropriately, but I do not think the questions are quite tight enough. I am afraid to say that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that leaving it “completely open”, as he puts it, to doctors would be safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I remember the hon. Lady’s very powerful speech on Second Reading and I fully recognise that, which is why I said that I recognise that including suffering would be problematic. I understand her point about pain as well. I think we need belt and braces. If we are going to do this, we should have strict restrictions on prognosis, because I want to restrict the time limit. I could go further than six months; we keep hearing about people in the very last stages of their life, and I think it should be restricted to them, but I also think the purpose of seeking an assisted death should be consistent with all the arguments that we keep hearing about people suffering terribly at the end from an agonising death, and we need to restrict it to those cases as well. It should be for people at the very end of their life, for the avoidance of suffering terrible pain. Those are the reasons that the public, in so far as they do support the Bill, support it—they support it for those reasons only.

[Dr Opher]

In my experience, often the reason people talk to me about assisted death—obviously, it is not legal at the moment—is fear of uncertainty at the end of life. That is one of the major things. For example, if someone has a bronchial tumour, it might suddenly haemorrhage, causing them to die by drowning in their own blood. That is something that people will do a lot to avoid. That is not pain; it is something else. As the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire mentioned, a tumour on the carotid artery can suddenly bleed catastrophically. That is not pain, but it is another reason for doing it. I believe it is that fear of what might happen at the end of life that drives most of this. Sometimes it cannot, but usually pain can be palliated —there are many ways to do that—but that fear of what will happen cannot be. We must not do this just for pain.

[Danny Kruger]

The amendment would require people to request an assisted death for the purpose of avoiding pain. If the purpose is to avoid the pain of the death that the hon. Gentleman described, they would qualify under the amendment. I want to push back slightly. I recognise that he is a doctor and I am not, but the case that was cited on Second Reading has been refenced a number of times. I want to look more closely at it, because I have heard from a number of professionals that the account given was not reflective of the usual course of events for that illness. I am sure that, as a doctor, when people say that they fear that sort of death, he does not confirm that it is likely to happen to them.

I want to come to the reality, as I understand it from the evidence, of the genuine opportunities that medicine gives to afford people a good death, which is what medicine should be about.

[Dr Opher]

In carcinoma of the bronchus, it is a real risk—and it is a risk that oncologists will tell me and tell the patient. That is the sort of thing that people adopt assisted dying to avoid.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

Well, perhaps my hon. Friend wants to come up with a further amendment, to strengthen it even more and say that we should restrict it only to agony or extreme pain. No, I am trying to be reasonable and say that the case made for the Bill, in public and I think in the public mind, is that its beneficiaries will be those who face terrible pain at the very end of their life, and if that is our intention, let us specify that. That is what the Bill does.

[Dr Opher]

I do not believe that the intention of the Bill is simply about being able to have an assisted death because of pain. Nothing in the Bill says that. We heard evidence from Dr Hussain, who was against assisted dying, but she admitted that there are people for whom we cannot control the pain, so that is another point. The whole interpretation of the Bill is incorrect. It is not about pain at the end of life; it is about controlling one’s own death.

[Danny Kruger]

That is exactly my point. There are those who think that it should be just for people facing terrible pain at the end of life, but that is not what the Bill does, and it is not what the hon. Gentleman says it should do. He would like there to be a Bill that says simply, “If you want to take your own life with the help of the state, you should be allowed to do so.” That is the logic of his position. I do not see why there are any other safeguards—if we believe in absolute autonomy, that is where we are. It is either/or. Either this is a Bill for full autonomy, or there are safeguards to restrict it to the people whom the public are rightly concerned about: those who suffer terribly at the end of life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

That is absolutely right. It is a very depressing fact that it seems to be the sentiment of the Committee that we should allow people to request and receive an assisted death for the purpose of saving their relatives money. That does seem to be what people are saying.

[Dr Opher]

There is something called continuing healthcare, which would fund end-of-life care, if someone has a terminal prognosis of six months or less, so care costs would be covered by the state.

[Danny Kruger]

That is a fair point. I do not propose to push the amendment to a vote, but I hope that the point has landed sufficiently. There is a genuine concern that people will, as they do in other countries, with increasing regularity and in concerning numbers, seek to have an assisted death not with their own personal interests in mind but for the sake of others. That may be generous-spirited of them, but it is not the purpose of this Bill as far as I understand it.

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

Debate between Simon Opher and Danny Kruger

Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

Q Following straight on from that, do you imagine it to be an NHS-funded service if it is outside core general practice? If so, what might the implications be for resourcing, assuming that it was funded out of general NHS resources? In the practical terms of the Bill, what do you think of the provision that the co-ordinating doctor must remain present with the person until they die, bearing in mind that that might take some hours? I am interested in your view on the implications for resourcing the service.

Dr Mulholland: Fortunately, that is not the RCGP’s bit, but I think we would be very much concerned. In our principles, we were clear that we thought that there should be no reduction in core services in general practice, nor should there be any reduction, if the Bill goes through, in funding to palliative care services, which we know are often struggling as well. This should therefore be additionally funded. Whether it occurs in the NHS is not our decision, but we would be very concerned about health inequalities creeping into any part of the health service. We are aware of the differential that occurs in lots of things—life expectancy has come out again in recent reports between different parts of the country and people who live with different levels of poverty. If the Bill comes through, we will want to make sure that there is not a differential in who is able to access it. Whether that says that it should be NHS or private I am not sure, but that needs to be considered as part of whatever comes out of this.

[Dr Opher]

Q I would like to go back to the point about depression, because it is common. In the general population, 20% are on antidepressants—on SSRIs. GPs diagnose the vast majority of depressions. Dr Mulholland, what are your thoughts on whether checking for demonstrable depression should be a standard part of the assessment before you refer people into the service? The idea of getting a psychiatrist who wanted assisted dying to see every case, given how difficult it is to see a psychiatrist in the NHS at present, would really limit the service.

Dr Mulholland: We see a lot of people with mood disorders of different types and of different severities. Many people with depression who are treated with antidepressants carry out full-functioning jobs and lives because of the treatment that they have and because their depression is not of that severity. If someone had very severe depression and we were accessing our psychiatric colleagues, that would be a different decision, and perhaps it is not something that would happen at that point. Most people with depression, anxiety and other mental health problems would have capacity, because we would presume it under the Mental Capacity Act, so it is not necessarily an obstruction to people being referred for anything.

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

Debate between Simon Opher and Danny Kruger

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

Q Following straight on from that, do you imagine it to be an NHS-funded service if it is outside core general practice? If so, what might the implications be for resourcing, assuming that it was funded out of general NHS resources? In the practical terms of the Bill, what do you think of the provision that the co-ordinating doctor must remain present with the person until they die, bearing in mind that that might take some hours? I am interested in your view on the implications for resourcing the service.

Dr Mulholland: Fortunately, that is not the RCGP’s bit, but I think we would be very much concerned. In our principles, we were clear that we thought that there should be no reduction in core services in general practice, nor should there be any reduction, if the Bill goes through, in funding to palliative care services, which we know are often struggling as well. This should therefore be additionally funded. Whether it occurs in the NHS is not our decision, but we would be very concerned about health inequalities creeping into any part of the health service. We are aware of the differential that occurs in lots of things—life expectancy has come out again in recent reports between different parts of the country and people who live with different levels of poverty. If the Bill comes through, we will want to make sure that there is not a differential in who is able to access it. Whether that says that it should be NHS or private I am not sure, but that needs to be considered as part of whatever comes out of this.

[Dr Opher]

Q I would like to go back to the point about depression, because it is common. In the general population, 20% are on antidepressants—on SSRIs. GPs diagnose the vast majority of depressions. Dr Mulholland, what are your thoughts on whether checking for demonstrable depression should be a standard part of the assessment before you refer people into the service? The idea of getting a psychiatrist who wanted assisted dying to see every case, given how difficult it is to see a psychiatrist in the NHS at present, would really limit the service.

Dr Mulholland: We see a lot of people with mood disorders of different types and of different severities. Many people with depression who are treated with antidepressants carry out full-functioning jobs and lives because of the treatment that they have and because their depression is not of that severity. If someone had very severe depression and we were accessing our psychiatric colleagues, that would be a different decision, and perhaps it is not something that would happen at that point. Most people with depression, anxiety and other mental health problems would have capacity, because we would presume it under the Mental Capacity Act, so it is not necessarily an obstruction to people being referred for anything.

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

Debate between Simon Opher and Danny Kruger

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for all giving up your time, with your very high level of palliative care expertise and experience. I am a practising GP, and GPs and district nurses do a lot of palliative care with a lot of advice from you people. I have also noticed that, even with the absolute best quality palliative care, some people have still talked to me about an assisted death, or shortening their death. I would like to hear your comments. Is this more about autonomy than symptom control?

Dr Clarke: I absolutely agree that in a small number of cases, palliative care at the highest level cannot eradicate all suffering, and cannot prevent a person from wishing to end their life and have assistance in ending their life. That is absolutely the case; I would say that it happens surprisingly uncommonly, in my experience, but it does happen.

Autonomy is the crux of the issue for me, because autonomy is predicated on having meaningful choices. Can you actually choose option a or option b? Let us say that option a is high-quality not just palliative care, but medical care in general—district nursing care or social care, for example. If that is not available to you, you are potentially being pushed towards “choosing” option b—the route of assisted dying—not freely and not autonomously, but because option a has been denied to you by real-world failures. We all know about those real-world conditions—we are all familiar with the latest winter crisis, where patients have been dying on trolleys in corridors, etc—that are preventing the actual option of a death in which dignity, comfort and even moments of joy can be maintained right up until the end of life, when that patient is getting the high-quality palliative NHS and social care that they need.

That is the crux of the issue. If you do not have that as a real option for patients, we can say that they are choosing autonomously assisted dying, but actually society is coercing them into that so-called choice because it is not funding the care that makes them feel as though life is worth living. That is why I think many of my colleagues are so concerned about legal change now. It is not because of an opposition to assisted dying in principle. It is because the real-world conditions of the NHS today are such that people’s suffering means that occasionally they will beg me to end their life, and I know that that begging comes not from the cancer, for example, per se, but because they have been at home not getting any adequate pain relief. Once you start to provide proper palliative care, very often that changes.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

Q I will ask you one quick question, Dr Cox. Dr Clarke said that the capacity assessment was poorly conducted. Do you think that the threshold is appropriate, using the Mental Capacity Act 2005? Assuming that we could conduct these assessments adequately, do you think that the threshold is safe?

Dr Cox: I and my colleagues have concerns about the safeguards in the Bill. It is not just the capacity assessment; we also acknowledge that prognosis is incredibly difficult to assess accurately. I would say that you cannot always identify coercion. You can identify it when it is very obvious and extreme, but when it is very subtle, we cannot always identify it. After the event, there is nobody to tell us about coercion, so it is very difficult to monitor.

The other thing that concerns me is that we are putting all these assessments on the shoulders of two doctors individually, followed up by a High Court judge. In any other clinical practice, when we are making very serious decisions, we know that shared decisions are much better quality, much more robust and much safer. In clinical practice, we make all these decisions in multi-professional teams. I would never make these decisions independently of my team, because the perspective they bring can help me to understand things that I am not seeing.

The thing that I am really concerned about is how it is possible for these doctors, even with training, to have a good understanding of all illnesses in order that they can identify prognosis—neurological, cancer and every other. How is it possible for them to really understand capacity when capacity is not an absolute; it does change and it is very complex to assess? How is it possible for them to see all cases of coercion, which can be invisible?

In addition to that, are those doctors going to be looking out for opportunities to refer to palliative care when they see somebody who has suffering that could be addressed and may change their mind? Are they looking out for untreated depression? We know that treatment of depression can result in people changing their minds about wanting to die. It is a lot to ask these individual doctors to do, and that really concerns me.

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

Debate between Simon Opher and Danny Kruger

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for all giving up your time, with your very high level of palliative care expertise and experience. I am a practising GP, and GPs and district nurses do a lot of palliative care with a lot of advice from you people. I have also noticed that, even with the absolute best quality palliative care, some people have still talked to me about an assisted death, or shortening their death. I would like to hear your comments. Is this more about autonomy than symptom control?

Dr Clarke: I absolutely agree that in a small number of cases, palliative care at the highest level cannot eradicate all suffering, and cannot prevent a person from wishing to end their life and have assistance in ending their life. That is absolutely the case; I would say that it happens surprisingly uncommonly, in my experience, but it does happen.

Autonomy is the crux of the issue for me, because autonomy is predicated on having meaningful choices. Can you actually choose option a or option b? Let us say that option a is high-quality not just palliative care, but medical care in general—district nursing care or social care, for example. If that is not available to you, you are potentially being pushed towards “choosing” option b—the route of assisted dying—not freely and not autonomously, but because option a has been denied to you by real-world failures. We all know about those real-world conditions—we are all familiar with the latest winter crisis, where patients have been dying on trolleys in corridors, etc—that are preventing the actual option of a death in which dignity, comfort and even moments of joy can be maintained right up until the end of life, when that patient is getting the high-quality palliative NHS and social care that they need.

That is the crux of the issue. If you do not have that as a real option for patients, we can say that they are choosing autonomously assisted dying, but actually society is coercing them into that so-called choice because it is not funding the care that makes them feel as though life is worth living. That is why I think many of my colleagues are so concerned about legal change now. It is not because of an opposition to assisted dying in principle. It is because the real-world conditions of the NHS today are such that people’s suffering means that occasionally they will beg me to end their life, and I know that that begging comes not from the cancer, for example, per se, but because they have been at home not getting any adequate pain relief. Once you start to provide proper palliative care, very often that changes.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

Q I will ask you one quick question, Dr Cox. Dr Clarke said that the capacity assessment was poorly conducted. Do you think that the threshold is appropriate, using the Mental Capacity Act 2005? Assuming that we could conduct these assessments adequately, do you think that the threshold is safe?

Dr Cox: I and my colleagues have concerns about the safeguards in the Bill. It is not just the capacity assessment; we also acknowledge that prognosis is incredibly difficult to assess accurately. I would say that you cannot always identify coercion. You can identify it when it is very obvious and extreme, but when it is very subtle, we cannot always identify it. After the event, there is nobody to tell us about coercion, so it is very difficult to monitor.

The other thing that concerns me is that we are putting all these assessments on the shoulders of two doctors individually, followed up by a High Court judge. In any other clinical practice, when we are making very serious decisions, we know that shared decisions are much better quality, much more robust and much safer. In clinical practice, we make all these decisions in multi-professional teams. I would never make these decisions independently of my team, because the perspective they bring can help me to understand things that I am not seeing.

The thing that I am really concerned about is how it is possible for these doctors, even with training, to have a good understanding of all illnesses in order that they can identify prognosis—neurological, cancer and every other. How is it possible for them to really understand capacity when capacity is not an absolute; it does change and it is very complex to assess? How is it possible for them to see all cases of coercion, which can be invisible?

In addition to that, are those doctors going to be looking out for opportunities to refer to palliative care when they see somebody who has suffering that could be addressed and may change their mind? Are they looking out for untreated depression? We know that treatment of depression can result in people changing their minds about wanting to die. It is a lot to ask these individual doctors to do, and that really concerns me.

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

Debate between Simon Opher and Danny Kruger

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—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.