YouSaid · the spoken record
Naz Shah
We hold 73 passages that may be Naz Shah’s. We do not publish them until we can confirm who spoke. See the correction.
On the record 2015–2026
hansard · podcast
Every line below is reproduced as it was said and credited to the record it came from, and links to that record wherever it can be linked. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections
“He told us: “You will know from Sarah Cox’s evidence that the majority of palliative care consultants hold views against assisted dying, many of them very strongly. If the consultants felt, for example, that they could not keep their distance from assisted dying in a 12-bed hospice unit in the way they could in an 800-bed hospital, you could very easily see that if this was not done properly and the consultants deserted the hospice sector, you could no longer offer the specialist care that is so important to the Minister, the NHS and every health and social care provider.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“70, Q83.] In evidence to the Committee on 29 January, Toby Porter, chief executive officer of Hospice UK, said: “If hospices were involved in assisted dying, there is a theoretical risk that that would just reinforce an inaccurate perception about hospice and palliative care: the myth that you are helped along your way by doctors in hospices and hospitals. That is one risk. More briefly, the second risk relates to the duty of care. What do you need for hospice and palliative care services? You need adequate resourcing, which means staff and finances. In terms of staff, the real fragility in the hospice and palliative care sector is a shortage of clinical staff—that is shared nationally with the NHS and other healthcare providers.” Mr Porter also mentioned the evidence of Dr Cox.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In evidence to the Committee on 28 January, Dr Sarah Cox, a consultant in palliative care and president of the Association for Palliative Medicine, said: “I am also concerned about our palliative care workforce, which we know is already in crisis. Eighty-three per cent. of our members told the Royal College of Physicians in 2023 that they had staffing gaps, and more than 50% were unable to take leave because of those staffing gaps. Forty-three per cent. said that if assisted dying were implemented within their organisation, they would have to leave. This has a massive impact on palliative care, in terms of its potential to develop both our funding and our workforce, who are really concerned about this.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On funding, its written evidence TIAB 36 states: “If assisted dying is legalised and becomes part of the health service, steps should also be taken to ensure there is no financial detriment to any hospice, whatever their positioning on the practice.” I agree strongly with that argument, for several reasons. The hospice sector in this country receives a mixture of public funds and private or charitable money, including donations and the proceeds of charity shops and fundraising events. Like the rest of the population, the people who work in and run hospices have a mixture of views on assisted dying. Many have strong objections on various grounds. If public funds were made dependent on hospices agreeing to assisted dying taking place, we would see several things happen, all of them bad.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Caring for people who are close to the end of life is difficult and vital work. The people who do that on our behalf include some of the very best in our society. We should all hold ourselves responsible for not making the task of hospices more difficult. The idea that the Bill might do that has been raised with us by people working in this country’s hospices. Hospice UK takes a neutral position on whether assisted dying should be legal in England and Wales, but it has set out clear positions on how the Bill should and should not affect hospices.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 23 would also apply to all regulated care homes and hospices in England and Wales. It would provide that none of those organisations can “be subject to any detriment by a public authority as a result of not— (a) providing assistance in accordance with this Act, or (b) permitting such assistance to take place on their premises.” The new clause would also provide that no public authority can make its funding for a regulated care home or hospice dependent on the care home or hospice agreeing to provide assisted dying or to allow assisted dying to take place on its premises. All the amendments have the same goal: to ensure that the Bill does not harm this country’s hospices. We have heard from many witnesses how much hospices do in providing palliative and end-of-life care.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak to amendments 441 and 484, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and in support of new clause 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate. Amendment 441 would amend clause 23 so that there would be “no obligation on any care home or hospice regulated by the Care Quality Commission or the Care Inspectorate Wales to permit the provision of assistance under this Act on their premises.” I think it is clear that “assistance” in this context means the act of administering lethal drugs. That is the sense in which the word is used in clause 18, for example. Amendment 484 would tighten that restriction somewhat by providing that there is no obligation on any hospice to permit “any activity closely related to the provision of assistance under this Act”.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If we were in that space—I cannot imagine being there, but I am trying to understand it—would we want to access that service, because its religious belief differs from assisted dying as a principle?”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I absolutely do not think that, because her abortion rights are set out in law. However, I also think that when that woman is going into a refuge, that refuge will make it clear that she may choose not to. It is about empowering both sides. I am grateful for the right hon. Member’s intervention, but let us follow that argument. Let us say that somebody wants to pursue assisted death, and they want to go into a place, but they are informed that that organisation does not want to provide or has not signed up to providing an assisted death. It comes back to the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central rightly raised, which is that people do not deliberately go out looking to offend people.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Absolutely not. I would be horrified if that were the case. I know we have had cutbacks and we do not have the access, but I cannot imagine any refuge of any religious belief in this country turning away a woman in the situation that my hon. Friend describes.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and I absolutely hear what she is saying. If the woman were going into that hospice or care home when she was pursuing an assisted death, I am not sure how that would work.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which gives me a lot to think about. That is why I said that I genuinely do not have the answers. I want to have this discussion so that I can make the choice whether to support the amendments. I want to explore this issue further, because it is really important.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If we are talking about employers and employees, not people who are accessing the service as service users, I hope the scenario to which my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge referred would not happen.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Member. What he said is really helpful. I want to come back to the issue of opioids. As someone who suffers from chronic pain, my understanding is that I have a choice over whether I take opioids or other medication. So when people are allergic to opioids, they can potentially access other medication for pain relief.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When we recruit our staff, we put on the application form, or other information, that we would like applicants to believe in our value system. That is not discriminating against somebody who has a different value system. That would be my response.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend makes a very valid point: it is not straightforward. That is why people are tabling amendments and having this discussion—to iron this issue out and make sure we nail it, to make the process as safe as possible. There are laws in our country that protect people’s religious views—for example, we have the Equality Act 2010—and those laws are there for a reason. Speaking to all the amendments, I would not want to see hospices not being funded because they take a certain position. Also, from an employer’s perspective—I appreciate the scenario that has been mentioned, and I will come back to it—they may be recruiting in accordance with their values. We are all in politics, and we all sign up to a particular view of politics.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is not what I am saying. I am saying very clearly that when we recruit people to any job, we ask them to have the values that we have as an organisation. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention, but what he says is certainly not the point I am trying to make, and I cannot imagine anybody—even for religious reasons, and even if they have changed their position—genuinely treating somebody in that way. We just do not do that.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Coming back to beliefs, there is also the element of charitable bodies. Have we spoken to the Charity Commission about the impact on those bodies if they were pressured by the Bill into changing their charitable aims? Would they be protected from providing assisted death because of their charitable aims? For me, this debate has raised more questions than answers, and there is much more discussion to be had. I am happy to listen to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, as I can then intervene and probe further.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For example, if palliative care specialists are saying, “X amount of people would no longer want to be involved, so there is a real risk of an exodus of specialists from hospices,” we need to know whether there has been an assessment of that. Perhaps the Government can help us to understand that real concern from palliative care specialists. Given that the Minister mentioned his visit to a hospice this week, has he had any discussions with Care England care homes about allowing this process to happen in care homes themselves? How have the concerns of clinical staff about allowing an assisted death in their healthcare facility been assessed, and have those concerns been put to him? How many staff have indicated that they would need to leave the NHS, care providers or hospices if an assisted death were mandated on their premises?”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to clarify this. To sum up, this comes back to some of the questions I have for the Minister, and I wonder whether he can answer some of them. I say that especially because the Committee has had lots of debates on amendments tabled by the Government via my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley giving the Secretary of State statutory duties. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to clarify this issue and make it watertight using regulations. Have we had an assessment of what the impact would be on the provision of healthcare if assisted death were permitted in either a hospice or care home, and is the Minister happy to share that assessment with the Committee?”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to strengthen safeguards more generally. In some ways, the Bill offers people a new opportunity to be coercive, controlling and dishonest. That is why I have been banging on about safeguards so much in this Committee; perhaps people find it a bit much, but I do it because abusers are very persistent and clever people and we have to be clever and persistent in how we devise our safeguards against them. Although I welcome the clause and the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, I am disappointed that other safeguards have been rejected. I still say that the panel procedure could and should be much tougher. That would not guarantee that abusers would be caught, but it would make it more likely.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Having unfortunately had lots of experience in the area—having seen it in my own life, the lives of people close to me and the lives of constituents—I know that sometimes abusers are not subtle. Even so, they can be hard to catch, because their victims cannot recognise that they are being abused. The classic—I wish I had a pound for every time I heard it—is “He’s changed.” There are hundreds of justifications and some are very subtle indeed. These people can be very hard to catch, or they may never be caught at all. I have heard hon. Members say—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said it earlier—that the Bill strengthens the safeguards around people who are terminally ill, because those are not there in the first place. I appreciate that idea, but that is just for those people who are terminally ill.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We need the people who may come into contact with it to be aware of what could happen; we need them to be able to spot the signs that it may be happening; we need ways to investigate those signs carefully. Only when we have done those things can we move on to the CPS potentially prosecuting somebody for an offence and, if they are found guilty by the court, to sentencing that person. Those are matters that this clause deals with, and they come at the end of a process. I welcome the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), which makes training in domestic abuse and coercion mandatory for professionals working on assisted dying cases, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has accepted. However, new training on its own will not be enough to make it near-impossible for abusers to succeed.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Sunderland Central made a powerful speech in this Committee the other day, in which he said that abusive or coercive people are already likely to be forcing their victims to starve themselves or refuse treatment. That is true, and I thank him for raising that important point. I will welcome all measures to make it harder for abusers to do so and will gladly work with hon. Members to do so. However, I want to sound a strong note of caution. Creating an offence and giving it a strong maximum penalty is only one of the ways to deter abuse and coercion, and perhaps the easiest. As I have mentioned before, the conviction rate for coercion is only about 4%. There are other things that we need to do to deter and prevent abuse.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is quite right for that to be the penalty for the offence detailed in subsection (1), namely when someone, “by dishonesty, coercion or pressure, induces another person to make a first or second declaration”, but does not actually succeed in getting them to the end of the assisted dying process. However, it is easy to agree that 14 years is an inadequate penalty for successfully coercing or pressurising somebody into an assisted death. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has recognised that problem and has tabled an amendment that would impose a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for such an offence. My hon.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, who has raised some concerns for me. I rise to speak in support of the amendments, but also to raise some points. I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but let me begin by speaking about the bits that I feel pleased with and able to support. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has already explained the amendments and may explain them more later. I am pleased that they tidy up errors in the original construction of the Bill. In its original form, subsection (2) rightly states: “A person who, by dishonesty, coercion or pressure, induces another person to self-administer an approved substance provided in accordance with this Act commits an offence.” Unfortunately, in the Bill as drafted, the penalty for such an act is only a prison sentence of 14 years.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“More thought needs to be given to that. I am not an expert or an eminent lawyer like the Minister, but I am concerned by the comments of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, having looked more closely at the issue. I would welcome the Minister’s comments.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The word “complication” has been used quite a lot in this Committee. Are we adding another layer of complication by putting this measure in the Bill, when we are not prepared to do so for other things that people feel strongly about? This is also something that already exists. My understanding is that if we were prosecuting coercion, for which unfortunately the prosecution rate is only 4%, that would not need DPP consent. It would be needed, potentially, for assisting suicide, but not for coercion. Do we need some clarity about the application of the law in this regard? Suppose we had a scenario in which somebody was murdered: it was premeditated, and somebody had thought through how to use this process as an avenue to kill that person. I do not want us to make a law that would allow somebody to literally get away with murder.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I apologise, Mr Dowd. I will not refer to them. I come back to the point made by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire about DPP consent. I will be grateful if the Minister picks up some of these queries. In this place, we make laws. My experience of the law on forced marriage—I was a victim of forced marriage—was that we made a law but never got any convictions. Very little moved on it, because we already had laws in place to prosecute that offence. I am not saying that the same is happening here, but I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that we may be making a law that already exists. If it already exists in the Suicide Act, are we just making a law for the sake of putting something on the statute book or on the face of the Bill? We have talked a lot about how we should not complicate things.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have taken your advice, Mr Dowd, because my points would have made for a long intervention. First, I gently remind my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley that we have not used the word “disingenuous” in this Committee, so I sincerely wish that he reflects on that. Regardless of the debate we are having, everyone on the Committee is very committed to what we are doing here. Secondly, my hon. Friend said that we were making a mountain out of a molehill. I refer again to the issue of forced marriage, legislation on which went through the House when police forces already had legislation to prosecute for it. As legislators, we should have ensured that we raised awareness and trained our police officers and communities to apply that—”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend, or we making it more complicated for our law enforcement to police this? Ultimately, if passed, that is what the amendments and the legislation will mean—real-time legislative changes and potential cases to prosecute. That is my point.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am speaking to the clause, Mr Dowd. I apologise—I will try to be clearer. Clause 25 creates a new offence, and I am trying to give an example of past legislation that speaks to the same principle. If we are creating a new offence that the DPP needs to consent to, and we already have an offence, then are we complicating it for the CPS or our police forces? Take the issue of coercion, because that is what the clause refers to. We only have a 4% conviction rate for coercion. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley referred to a horrific case of a lady who was investigated, and talked about her husband’s death. We need to be clearer about what the new offence would lead to. What would it actually protect? Are we protecting cases such as that referred to by my hon.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central, I appreciate that we do not want to put too much detail in the Bill, but with some of the commitments that we have made as a Government on collecting data we need to go further. That is for the simple reason that our equality laws are not right when we look at other issues, such as the gender pay gap.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 273 would strengthen our position to collect that data, which is really important if we are serious about potentially reviewing the legislation by looking at the loopholes and at which communities are taking up assisted dying. The data in other jurisdictions says that it would be people from affluent backgrounds, but the hon. Member for Richmond Park powerfully raised concerns about the risks, as we heard in evidence from people such as Dr Jamilla and others. I strongly support the amendment, but I will also look at the Equality and Human Rights Commission issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central raised; I thank him for raising them.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend makes a valid point; that is an issue. If we are going to do this right, are we going to be looking at all six characteristics? That is important, so I agree with him.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 447, in clause 30, page 18, line 12, leave out “may” and insert “must”. This amendment requires the Secretary of State to issue Codes of Conduct.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 447 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central; I also speak in support of amendment 523, which was tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire and helpfully clarifies amendment 447. My understanding was that the Bill’s promoter indicated that this was something she would support; I am happy to give way so she can clarify.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The independent commission on palliative and end of life care found that knowledge of palliative care among doctors is often limited, so the Secretary of State’s intervention will be much appreciated, and the codes will give a settled direction. I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has accepted amendment 447. I look forward to working through the rest of the Bill and getting some more amendments passed.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Doctors in England and Wales have never previously had to assess whether someone has a clear and settled intention, and it is surely unfair to ask them to work out how to make that judgment without clear guidance from a code of practice. A code of practice also mitigates the risk that different doctors will approach this task in widely differing ways. The truth is that the use of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is untested in relation to assisted death, where a person will take lethal drugs to end their life. Codes of practice will address important and difficult questions of interpretation. Again, that will give us much-needed clarity, including in the area of the provision of palliative care to people considering assisted dying and how doctors advise them.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 523 would make it clear that the Secretary of State can issue codes of practice on any other matters as they see appropriate, but they would not have to do so if they thought there were no other matters that needed such codes. That is a sensible clarification that preserves what the Bill drafters were doing when they wrote the clause. If the Bill passes, we will be authorising doctors to depart from centuries of previous practice. They will face decisions that they have not previously had to take. I am pleased that, if the Bill passes, the Government will be able to set out the clearest possible guidelines for medical professionals in accordance with the many provisions in this clause.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If these matters were not covered by codes of practice, they could be left to individual doctors to interpret, which would mean that doctors would face having to make unfamiliar and complex decisions without the clear guidance that a code of practice would give. That could have created—indeed, it would have created—dangers for both doctors and for people seeking assisted dying. The fifth area of responsibility for the Secretary of State, as set out in clause 30, is codes of practice on: “such other matters relating to the operation of this Act as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.” It seems clear to me that, because the Secretary of State will issue codes of practice for the first four areas of responsibility, they must also issue codes for other matters if they see a need for them. I am confident that we all agree on that.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They include some of the most consequential matters that this Committee is considering, as set out in clause 30. The first four are doctor’s assessments of “whether a person has a clear and settled intention to end their own life,” and whether that person has capacity to do so, accounting for the effect of depression and other mental disorders on decision making; the “treatment or palliative, hospice or other care available to the person”; the provisions for effectively communicating with them; and “the arrangements for providing approved substances to the person… and the assistance which such a person may be given”. They are all vital and I am pleased that this amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State has to issue codes of conduct, rather than being able to decide that they may not do so.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Perfect. I thank my hon. Friend—I like it when we get to amendments that are supported. Amendment 447 would literally change the word “may” to “must” in clause 30. The first four matters that the clause lists are so important that issuing codes of practice cannot be left just as a choice for the Secretary of State; it must be something that the Secretary of State has to do. It is worth pointing out, as I am learning about this new process, that when we leave it to the Secretary of State, that means a Secretary of State under any Government, depending on how long it takes. It is not necessarily just our Government; it could be another Government. I am just pointing that out, because somebody pointed it out very clearly to me, and I was shocked by that detail. The Bill sets out five areas of responsibility that the codes could cover.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is a well drafted amendment that would tighten those safeguards. I urge Members to support it.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I genuinely hope that the Committee will support the amendment, because it is our last option to make this intervention.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Some people who are seriously ill and who wish, in the words of a psychiatric witness, to “hasten death”, may see the 14-day period as intolerable. An alarming possibility is that they might stop eating in order to worsen their physical condition and qualify for the 48-hour period. Amendment 457 would remove that possibility. I strongly recommend that hon. Members support it. People would qualify for a shortened period for reflection only if they “have not voluntarily stopped eating and drinking”. That word “voluntarily” is important. I understand the reason that the Bill’s drafters included a provision for a shorter, second period of reflection, but as with much of the rest of the Bill, I am sorry to say that I do not think that they have provided strong enough safeguards.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My understanding is that your profession is already taking these decisions, or supporting patients to take these decisions—for example, the withdrawal of ventilation for an MND patient towards the end, or if I decide to decline treatment or food and water to end my life as quickly as I can.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 74, Q91.] In other words, it is not some remote possibility that patients who are already ill may decide to refuse food. That is one thing I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and I can agree on. We also know from the survey undertaken by a group of specialists in eating disorders that, in countries that have assisted dying laws, at least 60 people have qualified for assisted death because they suffered advanced malnutrition.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Gentleman said: “At the moment, within palliative care and palliative nursing generally, you are already dealing with patients who are electing to refuse treatment, food and water, or are supporting patients following an advance directive.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 59, Q70.] On the same day, the right hon. Gentleman said something similar to another witness, Dr Sarah Cox: “I want to pursue that point a little with you, Dr Cox.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If they refused food, there would be a strong possibility that their physical condition would deteriorate, so that a doctor would indeed believe that they were likely to die within one month. That is not a hypothetical possibility. We know that there are people who do refuse food to the point where they become gravely ill with malnutrition. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said something that I think is relevant here. He was asking questions of a witness before this Committee, Professor Nicola Ranger of the Royal College of Nursing, on 28 January. To quote Hansard , the right hon.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As we heard from the hon. Member for Richmond Park, her amendment concerns the second period for reflection under the Bill as drafted. The second period of reflection would take place after the panel had approved a person’s application for assisted death. The Bill states that that period would be 14 days, unless “the coordinating doctor reasonably believes that the person’s death is likely to occur before the end of the period of one month beginning with the day that declaration was made”; in that case, the second period is shortened to 48 hours. Some people who have a strong desire to hasten death might wish to avoid the second period for reflection.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗