Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Rebecca Smith(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Kinnock
As a Minister at the Dispatch Box, with the Government being neutral, I am not commenting on the policy intent of the Bill. What I am saying is that the new clause could create significant uncertainty. For example, it is not clear how the standard it introduces would interact with the definition of “terminal illness” set out in clause 2, which requires that a person’s death
“can reasonably be expected within six months”,
as it is not clear whether “reasonably be expected” fits within the balance of probabilities threshold or is beyond reasonable doubt.
Amendment 101 would exclude any person with a learning disability, including people with Down syndrome, from a preliminary discussion about assisted dying unless they raise the subject themselves, irrespective of whether they would otherwise be eligible. That may be subject to challenge under various international agreements, including the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and article 14 of the European convention on human rights, which prohibits disability discrimination.
Amendment 102 would introduce a requirement that
“the registered medical practitioner must ensure that the person has no remediable suicide risk factors which pose a significant risk to their life”
before holding a preliminary discussion under clause 5. The terms “remediable suicide risk factors” and
“a significant risk to their life”
have not been defined, so the amendment may be difficult to operationalise.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I tabled amendment 102 in good faith, as I thought it might be workable.
I want to reflect on what the Minister said at the beginning of his speech. I do not recall ever being offered an opportunity to pass my amendments to Government officials to ensure that they would be workable. Given the scope of what we are debating this afternoon, it sounds very much like any amendments that have not been tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) had no chance of being taken forward unless she accepted them.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Rebecca Smith(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Kinnock
I absolutely share the frustrations of my hon. Friend and his constituents. The investment made today was in response to GPs telling us that they needed more space; the investment will lead to more capacity and better access and outcomes for his constituents. Today’s announcement was only possible thanks to the decisions made in the October Budget, which were opposed by every party opposite. The choice is clear: investment in our NHS with Labour, or cuts with the Tories and Reform.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
My constituent Dr Toby Nelson, an NHS consultant dermatologist, has started a business that seeks to address the heavy demand on primary care for skin health screening. His business Map My Mole sends an image capture kit to patients to attach to their smartphones. The patients then send a high-resolution image remotely to be reviewed by a specialist consultant, bypassing the need for a GP appointment and freeing up time and resources for both doctor and patient. It has already resulted in a significant drop in skin cancer referrals in pilot GP surgeries. Will the Minister agree to meet Dr Nelson and me to discuss this revolutionary proposal?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Lady raises what sounds like an extremely interesting scheme. She will know that we have a strong commitment in our 10-year plan to shift from hospital to community, and indeed from analogue to digital. The digital aspects of that scheme sound very interesting, so I would be more than happy to take further representations from her.