Dr Simon Opher
MP for Stroud · Labour · United Kingdom
“The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. I would like to talk about natural flood management and how it sits naturally with district councils. In my constituency we have had more than 1,200 interventions over 12 years—I think we lead nationally on this.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Just over a year ago, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) were detained and then deported by Israeli authorities as we tried to enter the west bank. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), the hon.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is being so generous with his time. I echo what he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), who has led this campaign so strongly in Parliament.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There are many exceptional Lords who do a really good job at that, but their contribution is undermined by their complete lack of legitimacy. It is simply not right that our Parliament has more unelected lawmakers than lawmakers with a mandate from the people.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“According to research by Transparency International UK, 128 peers hold paid political advisory roles that risk breaching parliamentary rules. We must strengthen the House of Lords code of conduct to put beyond doubt that legislators who serve in the House of Lords should not be lobbyists.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The idea of unelected peers having inherited access to Parliament alongside crony appointees controlling the laws that Parliament produces is clearly ridiculous. It is no wonder that the crisis of confidence in our political system is at an all-time high.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
491 held · 468 searchable for Dr Simon Opher. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“I really want to point out that there is no incentive to agree to assisted dying, only to assess for it. There is no reason for people to be corrupted into agreeing, because it would not mean they would get any more money.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Briefly, the hon. Lady says that only 30% of palliative care is funded by the NHS, but that is quite spurious, because everyone who gives palliative care—all doctor time, palliative care consultants, palliative care departments, all GP services, all district nurses—gives it under the NHS. What she must be talking about is social care, which is obviously very different from medical NHS care.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I find the delay of four years that new clause 40 would introduce excessive in terms of the time taken and needed to deliver the requirements to implement the Bill in legal terms. I urge the Committee to reduce that at least to three years. That would mean four six-month checks, rather than six. The reason is that we have created a thorough Bill that is ready to implement. I understand that there are some pressures on the Department of Health and Social Care, so I accept a year’s delay. My worry is that a four-year delay might well take us past the next election and that the Bill will become an issue in the election.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am afraid I do not understand how we could change this. I just wanted to put on record that I feel that a four-year delay is excessive. I have nothing further to add to that, but I would be interested in the legal opinion on whether we can change it.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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—”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will be very brief. This is the most difficult speech I have had to make in the Committee. I think all of us who support the Bill are disappointed; I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley is incredibly disappointed. I believe that the Bill is deliverable within two years, but I have wanted this legislation for about 25 years, and my main aim is that the Bill passes. I understand, from certain dialogues I have had, that that is more likely if we accept amendment 548. In short, therefore, I will support the amendment. I will do so reluctantly, but it has my full support and I will vote for it.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The lack of an ability to assist in the final process would put medical professionals in a very difficult position. Would carrying the medicine to the room where the patient is count as assistance? I think we have to have assistance in the Bill, but I also feel that, as the Minister has outlined clearly, someone can help a person to self-administer but cannot administer. That is quite clear to me.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree with all the hon. Gentleman’s points. In terms of assistance, what we are talking about, potentially, if the technology arrives at that, is that the doctor may be able to put a Venflon into the patient’s vein, but they would not put the drug through the Venflon into the vein. That would enable the patient to have control. That is the type of assistance that could be quite useful in this scenario, but it would not involve the doctor actually delivering the drug.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I understand that hon. Members are coming from a good place, but I do not understand how amendment 429 would stop the doctor having to stay with the patient until they die. I agree that it is an important issue, so could the hon. Lady elucidate on that?”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I understand that what we are proposing is a new option that has not been there before, and we know that there are complications. But in a terminal situation, there would be no occurrence where we would call an emergency ambulance and take them to hospital, for example.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am glad to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. First, I will briefly address the whole area that we are talking about. GPs who are involved in terminal care will go and see a patient as they are slowly dying; we do not know at any point what will happen, and almost anything can happen. I have sat with people who may at any point have a massive pulmonary haemorrhage and drown, for example, or they may just quietly go to sleep—or they may start vomiting. What those of us in terminal care do is react to what is happening with the patient. For example, if they start to be sick, we would give them an anti-emetic; if they start to become very agitated we would then give them midazolam. What I am saying is that this is normal medical care. We have to be very careful not to stipulate in the Bill what is actually normal medical care.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my hon. Friend for his experience in a clinical setting. I would remind everybody that in the Bill we are trying to help people die in a comfortable way, and I do not feel it is the Bill’s job to define exactly how we treat nausea or abdominal obstruction and so on. What we would like to do here is ensure that a patient has a pain-free death, and a death that they are in control of.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, but I feel that whether the doctor is there should be the choice of the family and the patient. There may be some confusion about this, but to me, what the Bill implies—I am interested to hear the Government’s opinion—is that the doctor should deliver the medicine to the patient, check that the patient is willing to take the medicine as per amendment 462 from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, give the medicine to the patient, and then ask the family whether they want them to be there or in the next room. They need to be available, but do they need to be in the same room? I think that should be the choice of the family.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will make a little progress and will then take my hon. Friend’s intervention. On amendment 436, all medical practitioners are required under their code of practice to record any event they come across. I feel there should be better data and I agree with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that we need to collect data. We are actually very good at doing that in the NHS. Under clauses 21 and 22 there are provisions for the Secretary of State to collect data on complications. I am therefore not sure that particular amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central is necessary. I think I have covered amendment 464, from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. On amendment 429, about the doctor being in the same room, I totally understand the anxieties presented by my hon.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am interested to hear what the Government say about the wording around that amendment and whether it is safe. I would defer to the Minister on that. Amendment 430 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, about a code of practice that must address complications and failures, is quite a strong amendment and I am willing to support it. If as doctors we have a code of practice about how we handle this type of thing, the amendment would potentially help, and perhaps answer some of the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. I do not believe that amendment 255 from my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke is necessary. I believe it should be dealt with under clause 21. I believe that the very well put amendments 532 and 533 from my hon.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am in two minds about the doctor being present until the patient dies. In the circumstances, we need to encourage this to happen at home predominantly, because I think that is where most people would prefer to do this action. We perhaps need to look further at whether the doctor needs to stay, in the rare situation where the patient goes on. Let me conclude by saying that I know that the amendments all come from a good place, and that this is an anxious time, but terminal care is an anxious time for doctors, for patients, for everyone, because we do not know exactly what is going to happen. The Bill allows someone a way of dying, when they have a terminal illness, that has a bit more exactitude than normal practice.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think there is some truth in that, to be fair, but I believe we should leave it open to the family’s discretion, with the proviso that the doctor should be close at hand, whether that means outside the door or whatever. We need Government advice on whether amendment 429 is safe. I have nothing further to say.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The matter of unlicensed drugs sounds very alarming, but we cannot regulate a drug through the MHRA if it unlicensed, and we would be looking for therapeutic effect, which would not apply in this case. More importantly, many other regulatory bodies, like the pharmacy framework and the General Pharmaceutical Council—”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I think it sets a dangerous precedent to go against recommendations commissioned from an independent ombudsman. However, those from all parts of Parliament are equally to blame in this, and it is slightly unfair to blame it all on the one Minister sitting on his own over there.”
House of Commons17 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“T9. Pension credit claims, as we have heard, have increased by 64%, and I commend the Minister and the Department for making that happen, as well as Citizens Advice in Stroud and bureaux throughout the country. However, there are 800,000 people who earn just above that limit and live in poverty. I wonder whether, when a fiscal situation arises, the Government will review the cap, and indeed the gradient of this benefit.”
House of Commons17 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent statement. As he knows, I am a working GP in Stroud. We clinicians are simply fed up with the micromanagement of our caring clinical role, and many hospital colleagues feel the same. We want to be free to deliver excellent clinical care. Does he think that the abolition of NHSE will reduce the admin task for doctors?”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park for her considered amendments. I would like to go through all the amendments in the group. Amendment 348 is about the doctor communicating the outcome of the assessment, but I understand that that is already covered in clause 8(5)(b), which states that, having carried out the second assessment, the independent doctor will “provide each of the coordinating doctor and the person who was assessed with a copy of the statement.” I therefore do not think the amendment is necessary—it would be doubling up.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That doctor will therefore need to see a report, because he is the co-ordinating doctor. He cannot then get a second opinion from a different doctor; that would not be part of the process under the Bill. I do not feel the amendment would make the Bill any safer.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not see what that would add to the Bill. The co-ordinating doctor would have a result and the patient would have had the report back. I do not feel the amendment is necessary—it would over-complicate the Bill—but we can see what the Government’s legal position is on that. Amendment 303, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, suggests that the independent doctor should have to check that there has not already been a second opinion. We need to step back a bit and remember how the Bill will work. Basically, a doctor will refer to a co-ordinating doctor, who will make a full assessment of the patient. If, having carried out the first assessment, the co-ordinating doctor is satisfied that the requirements in the Bill are met, they will refer the person for the independent assessment.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Has it? Okay. I thank my hon. Friend. The amendments in this group all come from a good place, and I understand where hon. Members are coming from, but I do not feel that anything in them would make the Bill any safer or fairer for patients.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The amendment is good practice; I do not in any way deny that. The hon. Member for Reigate is obviously coming from a really good place. However, the amendment is almost like specifying that when someone goes to see a doctor, the doctor has to say, “How can I help? What is wrong?” It is just unnecessary; that is my only feeling about it. If someone came in and said, “I would like to request an assisted death”, the doctor would not just say, “Okay”—they would ask how the patient was feeling. It is normal medical practice to ask what is going on in someone’s mind, so that does not need to be specified in the Bill.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One patient survived for 21 hours because she had not taken the full dose because she fell asleep; that is a potential problem. All these things should be described, and are routinely described to patients in Australia. The first thing, then, is that we have plenty of data. The second thing I want to say is that we are dealing with the end of life. I have sat with patients as they have died; I have sometimes seen people being a little bit sick. We know how to cope with that. We do not need to specify how we cope with someone who is dying, because we have done it many, many times. I do not think amendment 306 will add anything to the Bill because it is part of what doctors do normally.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will be brief, because I think we have discussed this enough. I totally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. Patients need to be informed about the procedure—there is no argument about that—and I approve of the first three amendments in this group. Let me say a bit about data. I met the pharmacist from Australia who is in charge of assisted dying and he had data on 2,500 assisted dying patients. The data is clear: all the patients died—no one survived. Almost everyone immediately goes to sleep, which can be a problem, because if they do not take all the medicine, it causes a slight difficulty that I will explain in a minute. Fifty per cent died within 30 minutes, 70% within an hour and 95% within two hours.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Exactly. That is what worries me. I acknowledge what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said about pharmaceutical sponsorship, but I do not think that has anything to do with what we are talking about here. What we are talking about is specifying what doctors are doing as part of their daily job, for which they are trained. It would not be fair to publish those figures and put those doctors at risk.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There are examples. Appraising other doctors, for instance, is specified as a job that doctors are trained for, and it is paid at a set rate agreed with the Department of Health and Social Care. There are many instances where this occurs. I totally agree that the fee a doctor attracts for the service should be clearly specified and in the public domain, but I do not agree that a single doctor should be identified as having seen, say, 10 patients who have requested assisted death. I think that is unnecessary, will not lead to increased patient safety and will make it less safe for the medical practitioners too.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Lady for making this point, which is important, although probably not specifically relevant to what we are talking about in general with regard to making the Bill safe. Has the hon. Member for East Wiltshire not just completely contradicted the whole point of the amendment, however, by saying that we really do not know whether this process will cost more or less time for the NHS?”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Could I ask which amendment the hon. Member is talking about? Is it 284 or 6? Amendment 284 says that psychiatric assessment is mandatory in all cases, whereas amendment 6 says it is mandatory if capacity is in doubt. I just wondered which one he was talking about, because I support one and I do not support the other.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I apologise, Mrs Harris—I have got slightly confused with all the amendments. I do not have a speech that has been prepared for me, or anything like that, but I would like to make some comments. I think this is about the role of psychiatry and capacity, and how we deal that in the Bill. All these amendments reflect that. I would like to concentrate on whether we should actually mandate referral for all patients to a consultant psychiatrist, or adopt amendment 6, which suggests that if one of the two assessing doctors has concerns about either capacity or mental health, they should refer the patient to a psychiatrist. Those are the two choices I think we have here.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗