Sean Woodcock
MP for Banbury · Labour · United Kingdom
“Every week in my surgeries I hear about the consequences of Thames Water’s failures. An elderly widowed constituent was left without running water after it failed and botched the installation of a water meter, and she was forced to shell out hundreds of pounds on an emergency plumber to remedy the situation.”
“I meet businesses in my constituency all the time. As I stated at the beginning of my speech, they raise a number of the issues that the Opposition have raised, and I do not pretend that none of those come up in my conversations.”
“It is about protecting the firm, the other employees and the productivity of the business as much as it is about protecting the employee. This debate exposes a fundamental difference in vision. The Opposition believe in and want an unstable, low-growth economy built on a race to the bottom.”
“It is right for the Opposition to look at what this Government have done in this sphere, and they should absolutely provide such scrutiny, but they have missed a few things that this Government are doing. Our youth hubs will give young people the localised support they need to get into their local labour market.”
“A strong package of workers’ rights and protections goes hand in hand with a strong economy. The Employment Rights Act has been vital to modernising protections and making work pay, because when we give people certainty over their hours and their wages, we give them the confidence to spend on our high streets, to go into their local pubs…”
“They talked about AI, and how it is coming up in interviews and being used to filter out job applicants. They talked about failings in the school system and in careers advice. They talked about fears about their mental health, and whether they would have appropriate support if they enter the labour market.”
The complete record
Every one of 294 lines we hold for Sean Woodcock, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 6.
“I understand. I have said what I need to say on the amendment. I believe that it is relevant. I take your advice, Mrs Harris, but I commend it to the Committee.”
“The hon. Gentleman is making a really powerful speech, and I am minded to support the amendment on the basis that there will be a small but significant group of people who, having gone through the whole process, will feel they have been a burden on the people who have gone to all the effort, through every stage, to get to the end, so if they have doubts at the end, they may be reluctant to change their mind. It will be a very small group, but I do think it is significant. I see it as the re-establishment of autonomy for the patient, which we all believe in; does the hon. Gentleman agree?”
“The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is clearly trying to right what he believes to be an inherent injustice in the Bill, but is the hon. Member for East Wiltshire concerned, as I am, that if the amendment were to pass, it would take the debate from a place of being about assisted dying towards what many people would term euthanasia? That is not something that the House in any way endorsed by voting for the Bill on Second Reading.”
“The hon. Lady is making an important point about the lack of coherence that amendment 429 is trying to sort out. Throughout these weeks of debate in Committee, we have heard about the importance of clarity for practitioners. This provision introduces severe doubt as to exactly what a practitioner is meant to do. I understand that we do not want to say, “You have to do this and this, and in this order”, and that amendments have been rejected on that basis, but this clause opens a massive loophole in the law and practice, which concerns me. Does the hon. Lady share my concern?”
“My hon. Friend speaks with a lot of knowledge, and every time he contributes I learn something about the medical profession. My challenge to him is that while he is right that at the end of someone’s life GPs and doctors are used to looking after somebody, and there are lots of different complications from medical treatment, in the situation we are talking about the treatment—if we can call it that—is to end their life. That is a distinct difference. Something has gone wrong if their life has not ended suddenly or peacefully, as they were hoping. That means that they might die hours or days later, potentially in agony, or they will linger on, potentially also in agony. The amendment is to try and clarify what then happens, because I would suggest that this is very different from a normal medical procedure.”
“Simply recording the fact of a procedure failing will not provide enough information for monitoring, review and improvement. We should aim to do considerably better in the data we collect on patients who suffer complications, and that is why I urge Members to support the amendment.”
“That information could also be used to inform patients about the likelihood of suffering complications if they go ahead with assisted dying. We have heard from several hon. Members that good record taking is essential to monitoring and safeguarding assisted dying. Unfortunately, in other jurisdictions there are significant gaps in the data on when patients have suffered complications. In Oregon, records are destroyed the year after each annual report, and physicians are not required to be present when lethal drugs are taken, so the reports of complications depend on information provided by whoever was present at the time. Complications are recorded via a form, but in 2023, 72% of complications in cases were listed as unknown.”
“We have heard from the Minister that doctors should use their clinical judgment when that happens to a person undergoing assisted dying. Some doctors may commence lifesaving treatment; others may decide to wait and watch while the patient suffers complications in the hope that those complications do not last too long. Collecting accurate records will enable the authorities, including the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, to compile information on people suffering complications during assisted dying procedures, however few they are. That in turn would allow for several things. It might allow doctors to compile data on which drug combinations and methods are most likely to bring about complications. It could help doctors and medical authorities to write procedures for responding to patients who suffer such complications.”
“I rise to speak to amendment 440, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. It concerns what the doctor must do when they are supervising an assisted dying procedure. It would add a requirement for the medical records to include “(a) any interventions made by a medical practitioner in response to the procedure failing, and (b) the timing of those interventions.” Should the procedure fail and the person start to suffer complications, record keeping will be vital. That is particularly true because the Bill does not provide clear guidance on what doctors should do if a person starts to suffer complications during the assisted dying process; it states that a doctor and the applicant should discuss before the procedure what the applicant’s wishes would be if they suffer complications.”
“I understand where the hon. Lady is trying to come from with this, but I am not convinced that management of employee behaviour, such as going against policy set out by a hospice or an institution, should be in the Bill. I am struggling to get my head around the idea that that is what we should be policing. Will she explain why that should be included compared with the standard way a hospice would manage staff who had gone against their policy on any other aspect of their daily duties?”
“Member for North West Hampshire is absolutely right to state that if there is a moral imperative to do something, Parliament should look at passing it and then the public services should figure out how they implement it afterwards. He is right in that. There is obviously a question about whether there is that moral imperative, but he is right to point that out. Although I take the panel as a sincere attempt to strengthen the Bill, I feel that, as put before us, it is not strong enough. That is why I spoke yesterday to amendment (d) to new clause 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, which would ensure that the process was done properly and robustly. Nobody wants to see people dragged in front of a court when they are unwell, but there is the matter of safeguarding, and we do have a concern over coercion.”
“It is a pleasure to have you here this afternoon, Ms McVey. I did not intend to make a contribution, but given the number of contributions that have been made, I wanted to respond to them. It has been a really interesting and important sitting. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich is right. I see the panel as a genuine attempt to respond to the evidence we heard in the witness sessions and improve the process. I take that absolutely as read, particularly in respect of the evidence from Rachel Clarke, whose view was that coercion is happening and that we should take the NHS as it is, not as we would like it to be. I see the attempt at introducing a panel as a response to that. The right hon.”
“There is also the crucial matter of public trust, the condition of the national health service and the issue of capacity in the courts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich touched on, there is considerable disquiet and concern about how robust this process is going to be. Even though I think having the panel at the start of the process would improve what was put to the House on Second Reading, having judicial oversight at the very end would provide reassurance to the vast swathes of the public who are concerned about this, as well as to Members.”
“That is my next point—and it is a good question. As I said, the panel is done with the right intention and would improve the process in many ways. My view is similar to that of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire—it is possibly one aspect on which we are in agreement—in that I think it comes at the wrong part of the process. If it was earlier in the process, it would improve things. Court capacity is an issue, but I take the point made by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire that if we want the courts to do it, they need to get on and do it. I keep coming back to the issue of what we are asking the state to do. Implementing the wishes and autonomy of the patient is important, but we also need to take very seriously what we are asking the state to allow to be done in its name.”
“Friend the Member for Spen Valley to introduce the panel to improve on some aspects and address the concerns expressed in the witness testimony.”
“Having thought about it, that would be my preference. I am in a difficult position in that there is a lot to be said for the panel, and it would improve the process in many ways, but I cannot get around the fact that the judicial aspect was put strongly before Parliament, and ensuring that we would have those safeguards provided reassurance to Members. When I have been out on the doorstep talking to people who are in favour of the Bill—people who wanted me to vote in favour of it—they have said to me that they think the proposal is safe because it includes two doctors and judicial oversight. That does come up, which is why I think we need to keep judicial oversight in the Bill. I do, though, I recognise the very genuine attempt by my hon.”
“Friend the Member for Spen Valley, to upholding medical standards. It would clarify the full responsibilities of the registered medical practitioner under the General Medical Council guidelines. Perhaps more importantly, it would put the terminally ill person in a better position to understand fully the options available and the associated risks. In Committee, we have heard frequently that the Bill is about expanding choice and autonomy at the end of life. To act autonomously, terminally ill people need— I emphasise this again—to understand what they are facing as best they can, with the best and most accurate information available to them as early as possible. That is why I support amendment 362, and I urge the Committee to do so, too.”
“I can see no good reason why we would not want doctors to be entirely honest with patients who are considering assisted dying, even to the point of saying that the vast majority of people will not have any complications, but there is a chance. Personally, I see no issue with that, or why there should be. Doctors should give their patients that information; not only is that good practice—as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley—but, as the GMC guidance makes it clear, they should do so because we should not give people with serious illnesses a false picture of what assisted death means. I link back to the emphasis on the word “guarantee”, as per the written evidence I quoted. Amendment 362 would affirm the commitment of the Bill’s promoter, my hon.”
“That requires the registered medical practitioner to explain the full risk and the nature of the possible complications from the lethal drugs. The General Medical Council sets out five points of guidance for doctors on how they should hold a dialogue with their patients about reaching a decision. Three of the five GMC points are already covered by the Bill, but two are excluded: uncertainties about the diagnosis or prognosis, including options for further investigation; and the potential benefits, risks of harm, uncertainties about and likelihood of success of each option, including the option to take no action.”
“Member for East Wiltshire has already mentioned with respect to Oregon, between 2012 and 2022, 11% of the time there were complications. These complications raise important ethical and medical questions for the doctor and for the terminally ill person. Of course, by the time complications occur, it is too late to discuss or reconsider the person’s options. That is why it is essential that the registered medical practitioner has already explained and discussed with the person the risk and nature of the lethal drugs. Choice is about not simply having options available, but understanding them. That goes to the point I made at the beginning: autonomy is absolutely linked to the quality of the information that someone has been given in order to make that autonomous choice.”
“In the Netherlands, a high dose of barbiturates is used for all administrations of lethal drugs, and in two thirds of cases—the majority—the person dies within 90 minutes, but a third of cases do take longer and can take up to 30 hours. Complications include difficulty swallowing the whole prescribed dose, vomiting, and in some cases re-emergence from coma. I do not accept that this is an incidental concern. Vomiting affects up to 10% of assisted deaths by oral administration in the Netherlands. There is no easy way to research the efficacy of these drugs on humans given their lethal effects, and as a result there is no regulatory authority in the world that has approved these drugs to be used for this purpose. The data that we have shows that these complications take place in all jurisdictions that have assisted dying. As the hon.”
“I accept that that is absolutely what the promoter of the Bill, and those in support of it, are aiming for—that is not in question—but we have heard from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire about issues with that, and that there have been exceptions in places where such laws have been put in place. I also point to the evidence of James Haslam, a consultant in anaesthesia and intensive care medicine, who put in his written evidence to the Committee that assisted dying “does not guarantee a painless, peaceful and dignified death.” The key word there is “guarantee” because, unfortunately, some people who ingest the prescribed lethal drugs do experience distress and complications.”
“I believe that this must explicitly include an understanding of the nature of, and the risks of, the lethal drugs involved in assisted dying. This Bill’s passage through this place has led to lots of conversations and a greater awareness of the issue of death across the country. Morbid as that is, it is a really good, healthy thing that people are talking about end of life—something which we will all encounter—and that is welcome. The debate on assisted dying has made many people concerned about the nature of death and the choice that they might face at the end of their life. Inevitably, for some, the impression has been given that an assisted death uniformly provides a pain-free alternative.”
“I rise to speak in support of amendment 362, tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, which requires the registered medical practitioner to explain and discuss the nature and the risk of the lethal drugs. There is a bit of a theme to the amendments I have tabled so far: they have almost all been about giving the patient more information. The promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, is quite right in focusing on the importance of the patient’s autonomy. I absolutely believe in and value that autonomy—I am sure everybody across the Committee does so too—but true autonomy is linked to having access to good quality and accurate information. It can severely impact someone’s autonomy if they do not. This Bill states that the person must have an informed wish to end their own life.”
“If we are serious about having safeguards to protect the most vulnerable, we should and must accept it. The process of vetting applications will take more time on average, and a lot more time in some cases, but the alternative is a simpler and faster system in which it will be much harder for the panel to detect coercion and other disqualifying factors. In that case, the chances will be higher that some coercive or abusive people will find it possible to push people towards an assisted death. Such a system is what we see in new clause 21, as drafted. We face an inescapable trade-off. We cannot lift protection for those who are most vulnerable to coercion because it would make the process easier for people who do not face that risk. I urge hon. Members seriously to consider supporting the amendment.”
“This robust and comprehensive scrutiny is necessary to have a better chance of preventing the worst abuses. I foresee one possible criticism from some hon. Members, which is that the amendment would slow down the decision-making process for people who are at no risk of coercion. That may well be true, but if the amendment is accepted, the panel would have to question both doctors, not just hear from one, and it would have to determine whether to hear from and question other people. In straightforward cases, in which the panel discovers no initial evidence that disquiets it, a small amount of time might be added to the hearing; in cases in which the panel finds evidence that means it may need to dig deeper, there could be a greater delay to the decision. Personally, I do not see how we can avoid that.”
“Crucially, the panel would have to consider hearing from and questioning persons properly interested, and any other person who has provided treatment or care for the person being assessed in relation to that person’s terminal illness. It would also be able to hear from and question any other person whom new clause 21 states can be asked to report to the panel. The changes in the amendment would significantly improve the scrutiny provided by the multidisciplinary panel. It would provider a broader range and greater detail of evidence for the panel to base its review on. Ultimately, it would make the multidisciplinary review far more meaningful. Why is this greater scrutiny necessary? This is about protecting the vulnerable people who are easily forgotten. The amendment seeks to provide the strongest possible protection for them.”
“Any of them could be looking out for the person’s welfare and noticing them becoming more isolated and emotionally manipulated by another. At no point, however, does the panel have to consider hearing from that person. If this Bill is going to do everything to safeguard against the risk of coercion, as everybody on this Committee believes it should, that should change. The panel must consider listening to the people closest to the person. Amendment (d) to new clause 21, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, would address those flaws by giving the panel a higher standard of scrutiny. The panel would have to hear from and question both doctors. It would have to question the person, not simply hear from them. If the person has a proxy, as under clause 15, the panel would have to hear from and question that proxy.”
“Nor has it spoken to the person’s relatives, to anyone standing to benefit from the person’s death or to anyone in the person’s care. Any one of those people could have concerns that the person is being coerced into an assisted death. They may even have evidence of coercive behaviour. However, at no point is the panel required to consider speaking to any of those people. Time and again, the Committee has heard from experts that coercion and controlling behaviour can be extremely difficult to detect. Often, the person will not reveal that they are suffering from that form of coercion, yet it is often those who are closest to the sufferer—a close relative, a member of the family or a social worker—who pick up the signals.”
“Both doctors approve the person’s application for assisted dying, on the balance of probability. The person has a physical disability and asks a proxy—a neighbour, say—to sign off the application. The first doctor speaks to the panel via video link restating the schedule forms and providing no new information. The panel then hears from the person, also via video link. It cannot see the person, but after hearing their statement it decides that it is satisfied that the conditions are met and approves the person’s assisted death. The panel has not spoken to the second doctor and has not put any questions to the second doctor or to the person applying for an assisted death. Incredibly, the panel has not spoken to the proxy, who may just be someone of good standing in the community.”
“Let us be clear who that includes: the panel could assess the person’s application without any information from the person’s relatives, family members, friends, social workers or care workers. New clause 21 states only that the panel “may ask any person appearing to it to have relevant knowledge or experience to report to it on such matters relating to the person to whom the referral relates as it considers appropriate.” Subsection (4) makes it clear that, whereas paragraphs (a) to (c) require the panel to hear by live audio from the person seeking assisted dying, the evidence that the panel chooses to take from anybody else could be in written form. Let me draw out with an example what that might mean in practice. A person is diagnosed with a terminal illness—in this case, heart failure arising from coronary heart disease.”
“Fundamentally, the amendment would give the panel more tools to conduct meaningful scrutiny. However, let me list what the panel is not required to do under new clause 21. It does not have to hear from one of the two registered medical practitioners. It will hear from the other registered medical practitioner, perhaps via audio link, but it does not have to question them. Likewise, it will hear from the person, perhaps via audio link, but it does not have to question them. The person may have a proxy to sign their declarations, but the panel does not have to hear from or question the proxy. The panel does not have to hear from or question any other person.”
“The purpose of the panel is to provide meaningful scrutiny of a person’s application. The panel draws on a wider range of experts to assess the complex aspects of the application, such as assessing for coercion and capacity. However, the panel’s ability to fulfil this scrutinising role is in many ways quite limited. Amendment (d), which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, would address the significant oversights in new clause 21. It would introduce a far more comprehensive set of requirements for the panel in its review. Those changes are not barriers to access; rather, the amendment would ensure that the panel has a far wider range of information—a theme to which I referred earlier—on which to review the application for an assisted death.”
“It will allow the commissioner to have greater scrutiny over the application and better assess the person’s eligibility for assisted dying. Amendment (d) is a technical amendment. We have discussed a number of such amendments before in this Committee, many of which have fallen for reasons that I understand, even if I do not agree with them, including on the basis that doctors are already having these conversations and we do not want to police them. The panel stage is brand new; given that and given the level of public scrutiny of the Bill, I make no apology for supporting putting something into primary legislation to say what is expected of this process. It is very important that we make sure from the off that we get things right. I am deeply concerned about some of the potential oversights in the panel model.”
“May I say what a privilege it is to have you in the Chair, Mrs Harris? [ Laughter. ] Clearly, I know how to win and lose an audience. I rise to speak to amendment (d) to new clause 21, which has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North. I will start by saying how glad I am that the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, has recognised some of the concerns regarding the multidisciplinary panel, and I welcome the improvements that she has made in the new clause. I am pleased that the panel “must” now hear from the person to whom the referral relates, whereas previously it was the case that the panel “may” hear from them. That is a partial concession, but an important one.”
“Not only does the Bill clamp down on shoplifting, but it introduces a new offence of assaulting a retail worker. This provision stands firmly by those who serve our communities day in and day out. Shop workers deserve to feel safe in their workplace, and this new offence rightly acknowledges the seriousness of the threats and violence they face on a daily basis. This comprehensive and well-considered Bill delivers on this Government’s promise to make our streets safer and to protect the people who keep our communities running. I commend the Home Secretary, the ministerial team and the Government for their decisive action, which will benefit rural communities, as well as communities the length and breadth of the country. I urge all hon. Members to support it.”
“The importance of our local shops’ financial viability is particularly pronounced in rural areas such as Hook Norton, Enstone and Bloxham in my constituency, where they are not just businesses but essential services that form part of the fabric of the community. This Bill sends a clear and powerful message that rising rates of shoplifting will not be tolerated under this Government. The removal of the effective immunity for shop thefts under £200 will help to deter petty thieves and repeat offenders who have exploited that loophole. By closing the gap, the Bill ensures that every crime, no matter how small and seemingly petty, will be taken seriously. The measures outlined in the Bill are precisely what shopkeepers in my constituency have been calling for.”
“I rise to support the Bill and to commend the Government for bringing forward such a robust response to the scourge of retail crime that affects communities across our country, including my constituents in Banbury, Chipping Norton, Charlbury and the villages of north and west Oxfordshire. In my constituency, shoplifting offences increased by 25% between March 2022 and March 2024. This is a deeply concerning trend, not only for shopkeepers but for the local communities they serve. Shoplifting costs the average UK convenience store £6,259 a year. These costs are often passed on through the prices that customers pay, or are reflected in the serious questions that those shops face about their viability.”
“Given that this is a significantly more serious decision than organ donation, these amendments would seem a very appropriate change to consider.”
“In the witness testimony, particularly from Rachel Clarke, there was a lot of concern about whether coercion and people being put under pressure to go for assisted dying would be picked up, and whether the NHS was geared up for that. I think that this amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, goes some way to addressing that. I do not think training is a silver bullet, hence my votes over previous weeks, but it would make a massive difference. That is true not only for the implementation of the Bill; it would have wider benefits for the NHS, social care and palliative care more generally. Even though those are not necessarily in scope of the Bill, I suggest that they are good things, which is why Committee members should get behind amendment 21.”
“I will speak briefly on amendment 21, although I will commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford for his contribution to the debate. He speaks with clear expertise and experience, and a real love for his profession, and we all benefit greatly from his insights. Over the last few weeks, I have found myself voting the opposite way from the promoter of the Bill on a number of occasions, but I am not opposed to assisted dying in principle. My issue is more about whether we can ever make it safe enough; the difference between us is marginal. One thing that has been apparent throughout these debates is her passion for improving the training for those involved in palliative care, and in the wider NHS and social care generally. That is why I want to speak to amendment 21.”
“The variability in prognostic accuracy, especially for non-cancer illnesses, may exacerbate inequities in patient care.” They went on to say: “We also question how the term “reasonably” will be interpreted by doctors, and this is likely to vary between doctors, but also by the same doctor with different patients”. The Marie Curie palliative care research department also said that predicting someone’s death “too soon” can result in early palliative care, and that such early care is “not a harm in the same sense as might be implied in the context of assisted dying.””
“Clause 2 requires a doctor to have prognosed that “the person’s death…can reasonably be expected within 6 months.” I will not go over the various arguments that we have already had in Committee about that, but many of the very senior doctors who gave evidence to the Committee have said that it is extremely hard for medical professionals to give a prognosis with such assurance. The Marie Curie palliative care research department at University College London also submitted written evidence, numbered TIAB 39. Those experts said: “The Bill’s requirement for a prognosis of death within 6 months could lead to significant errors, where individuals either receive assisted dying prematurely or are denied it when desired.”
“If the amendment were made, paragraph (b) would go on to read “, including the risks and benefits of such treatment, potential side effects, and the impact of the treatment on the person’s quality and length of life.” Like amendment 108, amendments 343 and 344 are both intended to improve the quality of information that patients receive when they have their initial discussion about assisted dying. The first amendment addresses what many of the expert witnesses have identified as a key problem with the Bill.”
“Amendment 343 would change clause 4(4), on page 2, which reads: “If a registered medical practitioner conducts such a preliminary discussion with a person, the practitioner must explain to and discuss with that person— (a) the person’s diagnosis and prognosis”. If the amendment were made, subsection (4)(a), on line 28, would go on to read “, including any relevant probabilities and uncertainties surrounding the person’s diagnosis and prognosis.” Amendment 344 would change paragraph (b) on the next line, which says that the doctor must discuss with the patient “any treatment available and the likely effect of it”.”
“We all want to ensure that those with terminal illnesses are given good support and confidence in their decision at the end of their lives. Amendment 108 would do that, and would give people the opportunity of a real, informed choice, which is why I am delighted that the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, has agreed to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, who tabled amendments 343 and 344, has a distinguished record in policymaking in health and social care. She served as chief analyst and director of quality and strategy at the Department of Health. Both amendments are very thoughtful, and we would do well to adopt them. It would be helpful to explain what they would do before I set out why I think that hon. Members should vote for them.”
“In order to make palliative and hospice care a genuine choice, it is important that patients with concerns are able to speak to someone who can answer all their questions and offer accurate information. Marie Curie’s written evidence says: “There must be clear recognition within the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that genuine choice at the end of life cannot exist unless dying people are able to choose to receive high quality palliative and end of life care”. Unfortunately, we know that the state of palliative care in this country is not yet of evenly accessible quality. The amendment would not solve that problem—there is quite a lot of work to do in that regard—but it would at least improve the Bill. It would give every patient the option of a discussion about palliative medicine and would make some ground on access.”
“As I said, several people were concerned about autonomy, and providing people with the opportunity to meet a specialist. The written evidence from Hospice UK explains that there are currently wide misunderstandings about hospice care at societal level. It says: “Implementation of assisted dying without care given to public awareness about palliative care is likely to worsen individuals’ ability to make decisions regarding their end of life. People will need access to information about the services and support available to them.” That reminds the Committee that terminally ill people at the end of their life often may not know the options available to them. I am sure that every Member in the room wants to avoid that situation, and the option of a discussion with a specialist aims to ease some of that fear and provide accurate information.”
“When we are talking about autonomy, I think that all Committee members would agree that anybody making an autonomous choice could only benefit from more information, rather than suffer as a result of it. The Bill says that when a doctor has an initial conversation with a person about assisted dying, they should explain and discuss “any available palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.” The amendment aims to ensure that the patient has access to the best available information to make a decision about what they do next. It would act as a safeguard to prevent people from choosing assisted dying because they did not have a chance to have a thorough and accurate discussion about the care options available to them.”
“I rise to speak to amendments 108, 343 and 344. I am delighted that the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, has said that she accepts amendment 108, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet. It would require a doctor who was having an initial conversation with a person about assisted dying to “offer” to refer them to a palliative medical specialist. That would give the patient a chance to discuss end of life matters in depth with somebody who has the necessary expertise. We have spent much time in previous sittings on palliative care options, and there was some understandable concern about removing autonomy from those looking for assisted dying. I hope that amendment 108 strips away that concern, because it is about offering, not mandating, more information.”