Question proposed (this day): 201, in clause 9, page 5, line 36, leave out “and their medical records” and insert

“, examine such of their medical records as appear to the assessing doctor to be relevant,”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment provides that the duty on an assessing doctor to examine a person’s medical records is limited to records appearing to the doctor to be relevant.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 422, in clause 9, page 5, line 36, after “records” insert

“make such enquiries of professionals who are providing or have recently provided health or social care to the person as the assessing doctor considers appropriate,”.

This amendment requires an assessing doctor to make such enquiries of professionals who are providing, or have recently provided, health or social care to the person as the assessing doctor considers appropriate.

Amendment 468, in clause 9, page 5, line 37, at end insert—

“(aa) ask the person why they are seeking an assisted death.”.

Amendment 423, in clause 9, page 6, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) To inform their assessment, the assessing doctor must—

(a) consider whether they should consult a health professional or social care professional with qualifications in, or experience of, a matter relevant to the person being assessed;

(b) consult such a professional if they consider that there is a need to do so.

(2B) Where an assessing doctor consults a professional under subsection (2A)(b), the assessing doctor must give a written record of the consultation to the other assessing doctor.”.

This amendment requires the assessing doctor to consider whether they should consult specialist health or social care professionals, and to consult them if they consider there is a need to do so. A record of any consultation must be shared with the other assessing doctor.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms McVey. When we adjourned at 11.25 this morning, I had just been discussing amendment 201, but I will start again.

Amendment 201 seeks to clarify the wording in clause 9 relating to doctors’ assessments. It provides that the duty on an assessing doctor to examine a person’s medical records applies only to records that appear relevant to the doctor. The effect of the amendment is to make it clear as part of the assessment process that the assessing doctor is required only to review medical records that are considered by the doctor to be relevant to the person’s request to seek an assisted death.

Amendment 422 would add an additional requirement on an assessing doctor to make inquiries of professionals who are providing or have recently provided health or social care to the person and make such other inquiries as the assessing doctor considers appropriate. This applies to the co-ordinating doctor carrying out the first assessment and the independent doctor carrying out the second assessment.

Amendment 423 would require the assessing doctor to consider whether they should consult specialist health or social care professionals. These professionals should have qualifications in or experience of a matter relevant to the person being assessed, and they must be consulted if the assessing doctor considers that there is a need. This applies to the co-ordinating doctor carrying out the first assessment and to the independent doctor carrying out the second assessment. The amendment also provides that a record of any consultation with the specialist health or social care professionals must be shared with the other assessing doctor.

As the Bill is currently drafted, the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor are required to ascertain that the person has

“a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”.

That is set out in clauses 7 and 8. There is also a power in clause 30(1)(a) for the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice in connection with

“the assessment of whether a person has a clear and settled intention to end their own life”.

There are requirements for the assessing doctors to ascertain that a person is making the declaration

“voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured by any other person”.

That is set out in clauses 7(2)(g) and 8(2)(e). Amendment 468 would supplement those requirements with a requirement for the assessing doctor to ask a person why they are seeking an assisted death. I hope that those observations have been helpful to the Committee.

I have nothing further to add.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 19, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment 201 agreed to.

Amendment made: 422, in clause 9, page 5, line 36, after “records” insert

“make such enquiries of professionals who are providing or have recently provided health or social care to the person as the assessing doctor considers appropriate,”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment requires an assessing doctor to make such enquiries of professionals who are providing, or have recently provided, health or social care to the person as the assessing doctor considers appropriate.

Amendment proposed: 468, in clause 9, page 5, line 37, at end insert—

“(aa) ask the person why they are seeking an assisted death.”—

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 15.

Question accordingly negatived.

I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 9, page 6, line 1, leave out “might” and insert “is to”.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 305, in clause 9, page 6, line 3, after “about death” insert

“and any other effects in addition to death.”

This amendment would require the assessing doctor to explain effects the provided substance would have in addition to death.

Amendment 142, in clause 9, page 6, line 3, after “death” insert

“and how it will be administered”.

This amendment requires the assessing doctor to explain and discuss with the person how the substance that might be provided to assist the person to end their own life will be administered.

Amendment 362, in clause 9, page 6, line 3, after “death” insert

“and the risk and nature of possible complications including pain”.

This requires the doctor to explain the risk of possible complications to the person.

Amendment 306, in clause 9, page 6, line 6, after “section 18” insert

“including the escalation of medical intervention”.

This would require the assessing doctor to include the escalation of medical intervention in their discussion of the person’s wishing in the event of complications arising in the administration of the substance under section 18.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and to speak to this group of amendments. Amendments 93, 305, 142 and 362 relate to clause 9(2)(b)(iv); amendment 306, tabled by Rachael Maskell, relates to clause 9(2)(c).

Clause 9(2)(b)(iv) stipulates:

“The assessing doctor must…explain to and discuss with the person being assessed…the nature of the substance that might be provided to assist the person to end their own life (including how it will bring about death)”.

My amendment 93 would replace “might” with “is to”. In my view, the word “might” creates an air of possibility. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following definition:

“A possibility as distinct from a certainty”.

The Cambridge Dictionary goes somewhat further, defining “might” as the expression of a

“possibility that something will happen or be done, or that something is true although not very likely”.

In the context of the Bill, I consider that the use of “might” would create too ill-defined a concept.

For a patient to provide informed consent, it is necessary that the healthcare professional set out the relevant information in sufficient detail to enable that person to make an educated decision. In the circumstances of providing a substance, it follows that that information must include what that substance is. In my submission, it is insufficient simply to inform a patient that they might be provided with a substance, although they are just as likely, if not more likely, to receive another substance. Changing “might” to “is to” would provide greater certainty and precision in the wording of the Bill.

I recognise the concerns that have been raised that adopting amendment 93 would overly restrict which substance can be used, which may create an issue if the substance needs to be changed, for example if it was to be taken orally but has to be administered via a different route because the individual is no longer able to ingest orally. To my mind, however, the amendment would not prohibit a clinician from setting out to the individual a range of substances that could be used to provide them with the ability to end their own life, as long as the clinician includes the substance that is used and, crucially, the person seeking an assisted death indicates that in those circumstances they are content for that particular substance to be used. For example, it would be entirely open to an individual to inform a clinician that they are happy with regimes A, B and C, but not D.

I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend is trying to do. This is a genuine question: does he think that it is possible at this stage for the Government, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the NHS or whoever to provide the information that would be required? What is needed to enable the Bill to come into effect with the amendment that he proposes, so doctors are able to say exactly what drugs will be used?

In the scenario that I envisage, as we have seen in other jurisdictions, there are a variety of regimes that could be used in the given circumstances. It would be appropriate for an approved list of medications and substances to be a delegated matter for the Secretary of State. As medical and pharmacological studies progress, there may be changes to those regimes, so I do not propose putting a list on the face of the Bill. The way I envisage it operating, if the Bill comes into law, is that there would be an approved list of substances that would be open to use. There would have to be a range; we are acutely aware that there are supply chain issues at times, so limiting it to just one regime would be impracticable. I believe that amendment 93 would strengthen the wording of the Bill to provide greater certainty that the nature of the substance to be provided will be explained to and discussed with the person who is seeking an assisted death. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for indicating his broad support for the amendment.

I turn to amendment 305, tabled by the hon. Member for York Central. I appreciate the premise of the amendment, but I have some concerns about the precision of the drafting. It would require the assessing doctor to explain the effects of the provided substance, in addition to how it would bring about death. In its current form, the Bill requires the discussion with the assessing doctor to set out how the provided substance will result in death. My understanding is that the intent of amendment 305 is that they set out the side effects beyond those directly related to the mechanics of bringing about death; this would include any wider discussion around side effects.

It is important to consider the specific meaning of “side effect”: an effect of a drug, chemical or other medicine that is in addition to its intended consequences. My understanding is that specifically using the term “side effect” in amendment 305 would make the drafting more precise and would achieve the effect that the hon. Member for York Central intends.

In many ways, however, I feel that the amendment is unnecessary, because a discussion of side effects should be incorporated into any informed consent discussion. Additionally, subsections (2)(b)(iv) and (2)(c) of clause 9 indicate, in conjunction, that there will be a discussion of any complications that may arise as a result of substances given. It flows from that, I submit, that there must be a conversation about side effects.

Currently, when we start a patient on any medication, we usually give out information on indications and contraindications. If patients ask for one, we will give them a leaflet with information about the medication. Can the hon. Member clarify whether the amendment would help in that situation? Does he agree that a leaflet should be given to the patient?

The hon. Member makes an important point. In practice, one would of course discuss the side-effect profile of any medication or substance to be administered. I do not feel that specifying that in the Bill, as amendment 305 is drafted, would achieve its purpose. The amendment refers to “any other effects”, but it does not specifically mention side effects. In any event, it must flow from the interaction between clause 9(2)(b)(iv) and clause 9(2)(c) that the conversation about complications as a result of the administration of a substance will encompass a conversation about side effects.

It is worth noting that all substances have a side-effect profile; what the side effects are will be specific to the substance in question. I do not think it a helpful improvement to the Bill to presuppose what the side effects may be. Amendment 305, although imperfect, is therefore preferable in my view to amendment 362, which would require that specific side effects be set out and which presupposes a scenario involving a particular set of medication.

Nevertheless, I remain concerned about the wording of amendment 305. I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Spen Valley provided some reassurances as to the steps she has taken to honour the intention of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central and achieve a tighter piece of legislative drafting.

I turn to amendment 142, tabled by the hon. Member for Broxtowe. It seeks to ensure that the discussion with the assessing doctor includes a discussion of how the substance will be administered. Although it may not be strictly necessary, because that should be a conversation that takes place when someone is going through an informed consent process, I do not consider that its inclusion would undermine the operability of the Bill. I am therefore minded to support the amendment. I do not consider that it will be restrictive should the circumstances change, because there may be a broad conversation about the variety of substances that can be administered, depending on the circumstances. As the drafting of the Bill does not preclude or prohibit such a wider discussion, it would be eminently sensible to include the route of administration.

Amendment 306, in the name of the hon. Member for York Central, would require the assessing doctor to include the escalation of medical intervention in their discussion should complications arise. In many ways, that issue is covered by clause 9(2)(c), so the amendment would not aid the operability or interpretation of the Bill. It would be much better dealt with under the code of conduct, to avoid the Bill becoming overly prescriptive and to allow flexibility as scientific and medical knowledge adjusts and adapts over time.

I will speak to amendment 142, which would insert

“and how it will be administered” into the Bill. It would require the assessing doctor to explain and discuss with the person how the substance that might be provided to assist them to end their life will be administered.

The amendment would be a key step towards giving peace of mind to a terminally ill individual who is seeking an assisted death. It would also preserve their autonomy right up to the final stage. Ensuring that the method of administration is thoroughly explained would provide the doctors and the individual seeking an assisted death with the opportunity to consider the options—if there are options available to them—and decide which method would best preserve the autonomy of that individual.

Assisted dying presents many opportunities for individuals to be coerced, especially at the final stage—death itself. Therefore, the method of administration is key information for the individual to know, and it is not sufficient for it to be withheld from them. We must make it a prerequisite of the Bill that it is supplied. Making an informed choice about the assisted death pathway involves careful consideration, and knowing and understanding every step of the process. It is appropriate for the person to maintain their agency. Minimising the role played by the doctor at the administration stage is also key to ensure that the final act belongs to that individual.

We must acknowledge that many individuals seeking assisted death may experience significant mobility and physical limitations, particularly because of their terminal illness. Those limitations can affect their ability to engage with the process in ways other people may take for granted. For example, a patient suffering from severe weakness, paralysis or chronic pain might have difficulty physically positioning themselves or administering some types of substance, depending on the options available. A person may have difficulty swallowing and would not be able to ingest a substance in the form of a pill, but they may be able to autonomously operate a system that would allow them intravenous administration.

In these cases, the method of administration must be carefully considered and explained in a way that accommodates the patient’s unique physical needs. By discussing the challenges openly at this stage, doctors can help to ensure that the patient understands the options open to them, while making the process as comfortable and accessible as possible. Addressing their mobility and physical limitations in this context is not only a matter of practicality, but a reflection of our compassion and respect for that individual’s circumstances.

By limiting the doctor’s physical role, we also ensure that the patient retains control over the process. Making the act of self-administration as independent as possible ensures that the final part of the process gives the patient agency in choosing how and when to end their life. The individual must maintain a primary role in their death, but the actual administration is the final assurance and assertion of the individual’s choice to end their life. The amendment emphasises the importance of ensuring that, within the Bill, the doctor’s involvement is limited to preparation and support. That is key to making sure that the patient’s final moments are self-directed and as free from any unnecessary external interventions as possible.

Subsection 6 of clause 18, on the provision of assistance, discusses the role of the doctor in administration. It says that a doctor might

“assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.”

By ensuring that the method of administration of the substance aligns with the physical capabilities that a person has to self-ingest, which may be limited, we limit the role played by the doctor at this crucial stage, and limit the chance of the coercion of the individual or of the individual having a death that lacks real autonomy.

In conclusion, amendment 142 plays a crucial role in safeguarding the rights and autonomy of a terminally ill individual seeking an assisted death. By ensuring that the method of administration is clearly explained, we empower patients to make an informed, autonomous decision about the way in which they wish to end their life.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Esther. [Interruption.] You are Dame Esther, aren’t you?

I am not.

Are you not? That is an extraordinary oversight. That must be rectified as soon as possible— I am sure it will be. I will speak in support of the amendment in my name and those in the names of the hon. Member for York Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley. As he has explained, amendment 93 requires doctors to specify what drug “is to” be used, not just “might be” used. My amendment 362 states that there must be clarity on the complications and risks involved in the procedure. Amendment 305 states that we must be clear about

“other effects in addition to death.”

Amendment 306 discusses escalation in the event of complications.

We have discussed informed consent previously. We have identified that the General Medical Council’s guidance on critical information that patients must receive has been selectively placed in clause 7. Of the five areas that the GMC says should usually be conveyed to patients, two were omitted: first,

“uncertainties about the diagnosis or prognosis, including options for further investigation”,

and secondly,

“the potential benefits, risks of harm, uncertainties about and likelihood of success for each option, including the option to take no action. By ‘harm’ we mean any potential negative outcome, including a side effect or complication.”

It is not being explicitly stated that doctors should communicate that to patients.

Telling a patient exactly which drug or substance will be used to end their life, and its likely side effects, is critical if they are to have informed consent. Full understanding requires the patient to know the specific drug that will be used. It lets the patient grasp the method, its effects and its finality. Patients deserve to know how the drug will work; what its administration will be, whether oral or intravenous; the time it will take to have an effect, whether that is minutes or hours; and the other sensations that will be felt. It is difficult to say that we can convey that information without being specific about which drug will be used.

In other countries, for instance in the Netherlands, the criteria require that patients are fully informed, including about the drug that will be used and the method. In Oregon, the Death with Dignity Act similarly requires discussing the prescription of the specific drugs. That equips the patient to find out more, should they wish to do so, and to ask questions. A patient with a terminal disease needs to know the drug to confirm if it aligns with his or her wish for a peaceful death—it is not just an abstract agreement to die, trusting that medicine will do the trick.

An important consideration to note is age. Dr Jessica Kaan, writing in the Journal of Aid-in-Dying Medicine, found

“a clear and linear correlation between younger patient age and longer times to death. Older-age patients have, on average, shorter deaths.”

It is important for clinicians to be aware of that research. She continued:

“Clinicians should consider and discuss this information as part of informed decision-making…with patients.”

They can do that only if they are aware of what the drugs will be.

Amendment 305, in the name of the hon. Member for York Central, seeks to ensure that the medical practitioner discusses possible effects arising from the substance used to end the person’s life. Clause 9 currently states that the assessing doctor must

“explain to and discuss with the person being assessed…the nature of the substance that might be provided to assist the person to end their own life”.

The amendment would introduce a further requirement for the practitioner to explain and discuss

“any other effects in addition to death.”

That is important, because there will not always be safe, pain-free, curated deaths, as I am afraid are sold by campaigners for this law. We need to start with the uncertainties, and the fact is that assisted dying does not offer a risk-free death. In Oregon between 2012 and 2022, there was an 11% complication rate. Reported side effects included regurgitation, seizures, and surviving lethal drugs. Nine patients have regained consciousness after taking assisted suicide prescriptions. Half of all deaths in Oregon took over 53 minutes, which was the median time. The longest took 137 hours. It is not guaranteed that someone will have an uncomplicated, easy or indeed pain-free death.

Complications have been reported in other jurisdictions as well. In 2019, Washington state stopped reporting data relating to complications, despite multiple complications being reported in the years before then. None the less, complications including regurgitation, seizures and regaining consciousness have all been recorded since implementation in Washington. In 2018, there were eight recorded complications in Washington, all of which were regurgitation as a result of the ingestion of lethal drugs.

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.

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

That question was indeed put to the experts from Australia, but actually they were quite clear that there is a huge amount of evidence. Indeed, there is a very robust reporting mechanism in Australia—the best in the world, I suggest—so there is a huge amount of evidence from that jurisdiction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

The hon. Member may be surprised to hear that I am inclined to support his amendment 362 and amendment 142 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, not because of, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, the scare stories or the examples that the hon. Member has been giving, but predominantly because of what the amendment says on the tin: that a person must be given a full explanation of the risks of complications and how a substance should be administered. As I have said a number of times in Committee—

Order. Can I just check that this is an intervention?

It is an intervention, Ms McVey. My plea to the hon. Member is to focus on exactly what the amendment states. I appreciate all the stories and examples that he wishes to make, but it is important to reflect on the words of the amendment. As I said, I am minded to support it.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention.

Amendment 306, tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, addresses the question of what to do in the event of complications. I recognise that clause 9 states that that must be discussed, which I welcome. I think, though, that there is a significant absence that this amendment would address, which is what to do in the event of complications—specifically, which intervention would be appropriate.

Here we get into a very difficult area. I personally find it difficult to understand a way out of it, because it is a consequence of the sort of legislation that we are considering: what do we do when complications arise? Specifically, what do we do when the patient does not die and is still alive some hours later, possibly in distress? I have cited evidence about some of the complications that occur and the prevalence—for example, that 10% of such people in Oregon experience complications, including some who simply wake up again. We need to resolve this. On explaining possible side effects and complications, under the Bill as it stands none of the declarations that are signed by the doctors or the person requesting assistance confirm in writing that the criterion has been met for proper communication, so that is one concern.

My more substantial concern—I will finish with this—is that at the moment the doctors have to explain the complications, even though we do not know what the drugs are going to be yet, but they cannot discuss or decide with the patient what they would do in the event of complications. We know that the doctor must be present at the end or in the next room, but can they halt the process if complications arise—if the patient wakes up or is exhibiting signs of distress? That would be against the last known wishes of the patient who had said that they wanted to go ahead with the death. Should the doctor expedite the death knowing that that is what the patient theoretically wanted? Of course not, because that would be euthanasia; it would be the doctor actually killing the patient, which is illegal under the Bill. Do they stand by and do nothing at all, which goes against the doctor’s obligations to address symptoms and illness in a patient? If the patient is fitting or vomiting, the doctor would normally clear their airways. Should they do that, knowing that that might bring the patient back to life—that it might resuscitate them and stop the assisted death?

When we debate clause 18, we will discuss the process of the assistance that the doctor gives, but we are obliged, when we come to debate the Bill fully, to choose between three options. We could allow complications without any guidance, which is what the Bill does; that raises all sorts of challenges, and practical and ethical concerns, for doctors. We could stipulate that the patient should be revived, perhaps if a certain degree of distress is witnessed or if the patient is still alive after a certain period of time. Finally, we could allow euthanasia and say that, in that event, the doctor should be authorised to expedite the death. I do not know what the option should be. That is a question that a doctor would have to face in reality, in the bedroom of a patient who is exhibiting complications. I do not know what to do, but I do not think we should be proceeding with this Bill. Those who do believe in it have to answer this question: what does a doctor do if a patient is exhibiting distress and not dying—do they bring them back to life, expedite their death or do nothing?

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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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 rise to speak in support of amendments 305 and 306, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central.

Under amendment 305, a doctor would have to explain what effects the medicines would have as well as death. I appreciate the points made by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley, and what other Members have said about effects and side effects. I would first say: we do not know the side effects. There is no research into any of the drugs being used for the purpose that we are looking at—for assisted suicide, euthanasia or whatever whichever jurisdiction calls it. We therefore cannot give a clear view of what the side effects are; they are largely unknown, as I understand it.

In addition, there are different drugs. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned one drug, pentobarbital, which has caused huge concern. I did not know about the issue in Australia, but I know the evidence from death row in America, after Texas started using pento-barbital; there have been huge concerns and lawsuits there. I am happy to be referred to other evidence. In some cases, the effect of the drug has been described as akin to suffocating or even as being waterboarded or drowning.

Concerns have been expressed about the use of such drugs in other jurisdictions. I agree with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that we should be looking at all such jurisdictions, because this is something new for us. If we are to learn from other jurisdictions where assisted dying has happened and it has been okay for people, whether that is Australia or others, it is equally right that we hear from those jurisdictions where things have not gone right or to plan. That is important.

Clause 9(2)(b) states:

“The assessing doctor must…explain to and discuss with the person being assessed”,

among other things,

“the nature of the substance that might be provided to assist the person to end their own life (including how it will bring about death)”.

Amendment 305 would instead require that the assessing doctor explain to and discuss with the person being assessed the nature of the substance that might be provided to assist the person to end their life, including how it will bring about death and any other effects it would have in addition to death. That is really important.

There are several relevant things that patients should know if they are to be able to make an informed choice. First, they should have as clear an idea as possible what the experience of taking the lethal drug is like. In some countries where people undergo assisted dying, they swallow a cocktail of drugs. Patients whose assisted dying process did not succeed have said that the drugs are bitter tasting. If this is to be the method used in assisted death in this country, applicants should be aware of that, because some people do not take tablets—they just will not do it. If other methods are to be used, doctors should inform patients of what the experience will be like to the best of their knowledge.

The second thing assisted death applicants should know is that they may suffer complications. We know from countries and states that have assisted dying that some patients undergo complications during the process. It has been said before, but I will repeat the point, because it is really important: there can be complications. People may vomit or undergo seizures. One assisted dying recipient took 137 hours to die. That is five days and 17 hours.

We do not know the full number of patients who have died very lengthy deaths in Oregon, because the lethal drugs are self-administered, usually with no doctor present, but just because there is no report saying that things have gone wrong, it does not mean that everything has gone right. Oregon also found that at least nine patients failed to die from lethal drugs. We do not know whether that is the total number—again, because the assisted dying applicants in Oregon self-administer drugs. We can say with certainty that complications exist, although, unfortunately, gaps in the data mean that we do not know how common they are.

Amendment 306 would change the duties of a doctor present during the assisted dying process. Currently, clause 9(2)(c) states that the co-ordinating doctor must discuss with the person

“their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance”.

If the amendment were accepted, the clause would state that the co-ordinating doctor must discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance

“including the escalation of medication intervention”.

This is a point of great importance, both for the person seeking assisted dying and the doctor, who would have to be present for the process. It would mean that the applicant and the doctor would have to think through what they wanted to happen if the applicant did develop complications. Should the doctor at a certain point act to revive an applicant—for example, if the person seemed to be suffering extreme pain as a result of a lethal drug? Alternatively, should the doctor remain as an observer and, if it were clinically possible, someone to administer further pain-relieving drugs? Not doing anything is clearly not an option. Both courses of action might seem harrowing to the person seeking assisted dying, but it is something that they should clearly discuss with the doctor, because these situations could really happen.

There are clearly no easy answers to these questions, but if applicants are to take an informed choice over assisted dying and if we want to provide autonomy, they must know that these questions exist and they must discuss them with their doctors. We have talked a lot about autonomy for people with serious illness. Those people will not have autonomy unless they are informed in accurate detail about the possible outcomes of assisted dying, and these amendments would ensure that.

Ultimately, if someone takes a drug to end their life, they will either die or not die and be left in a compromised state. Are they then escalated to A&E, because leaving them in that state is not an option for any doctor—or does the doctor proceed to administer more drugs? What does the doctor do?

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. As clause 9 says, the doctor has an obligation to discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications, so that conversation would have happened with the patient. To be clear, the doctor cannot intervene to expediate the patient’s death. That is very clear in the Bill.

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Actually, clause 9(2)(c) covers the complications but does not state clearly what would happen in the event of those complications. Would the patient still want to carry on down that path?

To be clear, it does say

“discuss with the person their wishes”.

That includes whether they would want the doctor to call an ambulance if things got complicated, or whether they would want to be left—so the doctor would discuss with the patient their wishes in that situation. Fortunately, it does not happen very often.

Yes, fortunately not. I am not convinced that the clause covers it. I will go back to that, but I have just read it because the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley raised it and I support his amendment, and somebody else raised it earlier.

I am not convinced that the complications are covered, because the clause does not set it out. In the usual sense, complications are side effects from medications. We have research and literature given to us and we understand the potential side effects. In this instance, we do not have a yardstick. I do not know whether the Minister can speak about the Government’s intentions—it would be helpful to have an impact assessment—and whether any research has been done in this area.

I am not convinced that clause 9(2)(c) actually covers this point, and I think the amendment would make the Bill much stronger. Ultimately, these drugs have not been tested—and for a very good reason, because they lead to death. We are in unchartered territory. When we are doing things that we have not done before, we cannot just pick and choose what we apply an analogy to. We need to be careful. We really need to consider the options to make this clause in particular much stronger.

I completely understand what my hon. Friend is saying about what may need to happen in respect of medical intervention, but I gently point out that the amendment would not cover that. It does not spell out in any way, shape or form what a medical intervention would look like. It says that there needs to be a random discussion, but it does not lay out any sense of the medical intervention. I do not see how the amendment will do what my hon. Friend is looking for.

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As drafted, the Bill does not include effects. All it says is “complications”. It does not include the potential effects of the drugs that will be used. That is how the amendment would strengthen the Bill.

We might appear to be dancing on a pinhead, but this goes to the heart of the question about what on earth we do in the event of complications. As the hon. Member for Spen Valley says, the Bill as drafted says that discussions should be had about wishes in the event of complications. That might simply be, “Do you want us to call somebody? Do you want us to try to make you more comfortable?” The amendment would require a discussion of escalation—what further medical interventions might be appropriate in the event of complications arising. There is a huge question for us, which we have not yet had answered, about what on earth should be the range of options for a doctor. The importance of the amendment is to specify that there may be further medical interventions in the event of complications. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is the value of it?

I completely agree with the hon. Member. He said it much better than I did in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, so I thank him for that.

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. 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.

I am genuinely trying to understand and would like my hon. Friend to clarify. He says that doctors generally do this anyway, but the difference is that, in this instance, somebody has chosen to die. Generally, when doctors do anything they are trying to save patients, are they not? The general rule of thumb is that a doctor saves lives. In this instance, they are not doing that because the patient wants death.

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.

rose—

I had virtually finished, but I give way.

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

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.

I will be brief, as I have already alluded to my support. I put on the record my support for amendment 93. There has not been a lot of debate on it because it is a fairly straightforward proposal.

There has been a lot of discussion. Members on both sides of the Committee have spoken in defence of the medical profession in respect of huge parts of the Bill, although they should not have to. We have of course seen occasional bad practice, as we do in all professions, but we should take a moment to reflect on the dedication, diligence, hard work and expertise of medical professionals in everything they do. This debate has on occasion almost presented this as a 50:50 choice between good doctors and bad doctors. I think we would all agree that although we want to put in the right safeguards, that is not the case at all.

I have made this point a number of times, but I do not want to accept amendments that spell out all the rules and regulations so that every doctor has to go to the nth degree all the time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has said eloquently on a number of occasions, it is already in their codes of conduct, working practice, training and everything else. However, on occasion we cannot be satisfied that something is a given. For that reason, particularly in respect of amendments 142, 362 and perhaps 305, if we say that

“the nature of the substance that might be provided to assist the person to end their own life (including how it will bring about death)” must be discussed, it is not a huge leap to say that we should also spell out how it may be administered and the possible risks and complications that come with that. As I have said, I do not think it will create any unintended consequences. I do not think it puts the full rulebook on the face of the Bill. If we are stipulating how it will bring about the death, it is not a huge leap to also talk about the other side effects.

Cutting through some of the stories, and everything else we have heard this afternoon, we should be considering what the amendments seek to do—what they say on the tin, as it were. We should be asking doctors to have the conversations, although I am absolutely sure that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, those conversations will happen naturally anyway. I do not think there is anything harmful in the particular amendments, as we have discussed today.

Finally, on amendment 306, I understand the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire made. To be totally honest, I fail to see how the amendment satisfies the arguments they were trying to make, as powerful as those arguments are. It does not solve the issue they are looking to solve; I do not think it answers any of those questions. For that reason, I will not support amendment 306, but I am minded to support the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 93 relates to the discussion during the assessment that the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor are required to have with the person. The amendment would require that each of those doctors, during their assessment, must discuss the nature of the substance that “is to be provided” to the patient to end their life, rather than the substance that “might be provided”.

On amendment 305, clinicians in all areas are expected to work with patients to make decisions about their care and treatment as part of a shared decision-making process, including by discussing the risks, benefits and possible consequences of different options. The Committee may wish to note that the GMC’s “Good medical practice” states that when discussing a patient’s condition doctors must discuss with patients

“the potential benefits, risks of harm, uncertainties about, and likelihood of success for each option.”

That is the very point I am struggling with. Generally speaking, the GMC guidelines are absolutely right, and doctors are saving lives and making the person better. In this instance, somebody might have complications and they might vomit, for example—that happens a lot because people are unconscious. What does the clinician then do? Do they proceed with an assisted death, or do they get the person into A&E? I am trying to understand the answer to that question, and I hope the Minister can respond.

My hon. Friend will know that the Bill states that the assessing doctor must discuss with the individual

“their wishes in the event of complications”,

which could include medical interventions. What is also absolutely clear is that the Bill precludes the doctor from making any intervention, vis-à-vis the patient, that may lead to the patient’s death. The Bill is based on self-administration, not on administration by the doctor. By definition, the actions that can be taken by the doctor are things like calling an ambulance; they would not be things like escalating the substance that has been used in order to bring about the death of the patient. I hope that is clear to my hon. Friend.

I thank the Minister for that explanation. What happens if the patient sets out in advance that they want no interventions? What if they have said, under the clause as the Minister laid out, “In the event of complications, if I am vomiting and in distress, I want no interventions”, but when that happens the pain and distress are at a different level and they are begging the doctor to help them? What does the doctor do in that instance?

The key point, and what takes primacy above all else, is the professional judgment of the doctor. I commend the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich about every doctor in the profession; he reinforced the point about the immense skill, professionalism and judgment of clinicians and medical professionals across the length and breadth of our country. Clearly, in a crisis situation such as the one the hon. Lady described, the professional judgment of the doctor would kick in and they would take whatever action is necessary. If a patient stipulated what they wanted to happen in the event of complications and something like the hon. Lady just described were to happen, I do not think the doctor would accept those conditions.

I thank the Minister for that clarity. Does he think it would be worth while setting that out in more detail, in order to protect doctors and make it really clear what would happen in such a situation? This would be an unprecedented, unique and very new process, and I can imagine substantial moral injury to doctors from being put in that predicament if we are not very clear about what they are required to do and what they are required not to do.

The basic position of the Department of Health and Social Care and, by extension, the Government is that we rely on and trust our medical professionals to make judgments and do the right thing. They take the Hippocratic oath, so they are going to do what is right for the patient in the circumstances of their interaction with that patient. That is set out in guidance and in the corpus of law that we already have. There is a risk of destabilising the system by introducing measures that may well cause confusion and muddy the waters when the waters do not need to be muddied.

I am afraid that the waters are pretty muddied by the Bill. It states a direct contradiction of the Hippocratic oath, which requires doctors to save people’s lives and do nothing to bring about their death—including giving them lethal drugs. It is right there in the Hippocratic oath. There is obviously a real challenge if somebody has had assisted death drugs and then exhibits complications—if they are not dying quickly, for example, or are showing distress. Normally, the obligation on a doctor would be to relieve their symptoms and try to bring them back to life. Is the Minister saying that is what they should do—and if not, what should they do?

There is a debate to be had about the Bill’s effect on support for a patient. I am not here as a member of the Government to comment on the rights and wrongs of that, but those who support the Bill would argue that a doctor participating in and facilitating assisted dying is actually helping the patient and is, therefore, absolutely aligned with the Hippocratic oath, which is to do no harm. That is in the eye of the beholder, as I am sure the hon. Member would agree, and it is not my job to get into the whys and wherefores of the philosophy that underpins the Bill.

Order. If we could come back to the amendments, that would be helpful.

I will do so with huge pleasure—thank you, Ms McVey—but I would be more than happy to take up that discussion with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire at another time.

On amendment 142, it is worth noting that options for the method of administration of the substance may change if a patient’s condition alters as they progress through the process set out in the Bill.

Amendment 362 would add to the list of matters that must be discussed at the first and second assessments by the co-ordinating and independent doctors. It would require the assessing doctor to include an explanation and discussion of not only how the approved substance will bring about death, as set out in the Bill as drafted, but the risk and nature of any possible complications, including pain. The Committee may wish to note that the GMC’s “Good medical practice” already states that doctors must discuss with a patient

“the potential benefits, risks of harm, uncertainties about, and likelihood of success for each option” when discussing their condition.

As it stands, the Bill specifies that the assessing doctor must discuss the individual’s

“wishes in the event of complications”,

which could include medical interventions. However, amendment 306 would go further and specify that medical intervention must be discussed.

I hope those observations were helpful to the Committee.

I will start with amendment 93 tabled by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley. He made a really important point about the language in the clause, and I am very happy to support the amendment.

It is quite clear that, across the Committee, there is no disagreement that a terminally ill person requesting assistance to shorten their death should be given all the information necessary to help them make the clear, informed and settled decision the Bill requires. That should include an explanation of the drugs that are likely to be used—bearing in mind that there may be more than one option available to the person when the time comes, depending on their medical circumstances—and how they would be administered. As such, I am minded to support amendment 142, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe. Amendments 142 and 93 both provide helpful clarity for the Bill.

There are good intentions behind amendments 305, 306 and 362, but I am confident that they are already covered by clause 9(2)(b)(iv) and clause 9(2)(c). I do, however, take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley about the concept of side effects. Going forward, it might be helpful to look at that use of language. To conclude, I am minded to support amendments 93 and 142.

You will be delighted to learn that I have nothing further to add to this debate, Ms McVey.

Amendment 93 agreed to.

Amendment proposed: 305, in clause 9, page 6, line 3, after “about death” insert

“and any other effects in addition to death.”—(Danny Kruger.)

This amendment would require the assessing doctor to explain effects the provided substance would have in addition to death.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 13.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: 142, in clause 9, page 6, line 3, after “death” insert

“and how it will be administered”.—(Juliet Campbell.)

This amendment requires the assessing doctor to explain and discuss with the person how the substance that might be provided to assist the person to end their own life will be administered.

Amendment proposed: 362, in clause 9, page 6, line 3, after “death” insert

“and the risk and nature of possible complications including pain”.—(Danny Kruger.)

This requires the doctor to explain the risk of possible complications to the person.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 13.

Question accordingly negatived.

I beg to move amendment 307, in clause 9, page 6, line 18, leave out from beginning to “advise” and insert

“unless the assessing doctor has concluded in good faith, that this would not be in the person’s best interests.”

This amendment would require the assessing doctor to inform the person’s next of kin that the person wishes to seek assistance to end their own life unless it is not in the person’s best interests.

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 308, in clause 9, page 6, line 20, at end insert—

“(g) If that doctor considers that it is not in the person’s best interests under paragraph (f), this decision and the doctor’s reasoning must be documented.”

This amendment is consequential to Amendment 307 and would require a decision that it is not in the person’s best interests to inform their next of kin to be documented with its reasoning.

Amendments 307 and 308 concern the question of who should be informed when an application has been made or when an assisted death has been approved, and at what stage it is appropriate for family members or next of kin to be informed. During the debate on clause 8, we discussed whether a patient should be asked to state whether they have informed their family.

I think it is appropriate to have a stronger requirement for doctors to notify a patient’s next of kin. Amendment 307 would remove the phrase

“in so far as the assessing doctor considers it appropriate,” leaving that they should

“advise the person to consider discussing the request with their next of kin”.

Amendment 308 is either supplementary to amendment 307 or could work in isolation, because it states:

“If that doctor considers that it is not in the person’s best interests under paragraph (f), this decision and the doctor’s reasoning must be documented.”

These are important amendments because they communicate the truth that it is not just the patient who is affected by an assisted death; I suggest that others are affected. Conversely, behind that apparently autonomous individual patient, who might think they are acting with absolute autonomy and without reference to others, there may somebody who is exercising undue influence on them.

To me, these amendments speak to the essential tension at the heart of the Bill: whether we are talking about isolated individuals or recognising the reality that no man or woman is an island. We are all connected and we all have obligations, whether as a society to the people who will be involved in the administration of the procedure or, more directly and obviously, to family members or to the patient themselves, to be sure they are not subject to undue influence. There are many ways to try to identify undue influence, but one important one that would be addressed by this amendment is the opportunity to involve a person’s wider family in the discussions leading up to their assisted death.

I want to read out some of the short testimonies we have received—again, I do not want people who have submitted evidence to feel that their efforts have been in vain and that it has gone into a black hole. Some of us, at least, have digested it, and I want to repeat some of it for the benefit of the Committee. Let me quote Anna Bossong:

“I was at home late one evening in London when I received an unexpected call from a nurse at my mother’s nursing home in Australia. She said to me “I am calling from your mother’s room. All her friends are around her bed and are singing as they see her off. She has a morphine pump in her hand and I am helping her to pump it.

It is an understatement to say that I was shocked as this had come totally out of the blue.”

She goes on to explain the efforts she made, and the enormous trauma she suffered, as a consequence of this event happening without her prior knowledge.

Alicia Duncan also gave evidence to us:

“My mother informed us of her scheduled MAiD”— that is a reference to the Canadian medical assistance in dying system—

“less than 48 hours before her initial appointment, leaving my sister and me scrambling to respond. Over the next five days, we used every legal tool available, including obtaining a warrant under the Mental Health Act, to try to keep her alive through all legal means. She was admitted to a psychiatric unit but released after 48 hours and died without our knowledge just four hours later. Both of us have been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of these events.”

I am afraid to say that there are a number of terrible examples of this happening in jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal, and such things would be possible in our country too. I draw the Committee’s attention to the points made by the hon. Member for York Central, who tabled this amendment, about a constituent whose parent had an assisted death without her knowledge and about the trauma she suffered because she felt that it was the wrong thing to do and that the medical team should have had more knowledge of the circumstances surrounding her parent’s life.

We had evidence from the British Association of Social Workers, who wrote in after the oral sessions, conveying significant concerns about the Bill and stressing the absolute imperative of having proper family input at the right stage of the process. Indeed, the point seems to be half-recognised in the Bill, because clause 9 uses the phrase:

“in so far as the assessing doctor considers it appropriate”.

Again, doctors are being given that discretion not to proceed and to make sure that families are informed.

Requiring the doctor, when considering a patient’s request for assistance to end their life, to decide whether it is appropriate to advise them to discuss it with their next of kin introduces several problems. It places a subjective burden on the doctor. The term “appropriate” is very vague. Does it hinge on the patient’s family dynamics, their emotional state or indeed the doctor’s own biases?

The amendment that the hon. Member is supporting speaks of a doctor having to consider what is

“in the person’s best interests”,

which is wholly subjective. Does he not agree that the same difficulties he identifies with the current drafting are extrapolated greatly by the amendment?

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

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

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

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

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

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

She also said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am torn by this amendment. I absolutely accept that it is the right, the autonomy, of an individual to make the decisions and to have confidentiality when making those decisions, but I will touch on a few things that I have said previously.

First, briefly, I hear what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said about coercion. Secondly, however, there are two other aspects. Let me go back to something I have talked long and hard about, which is learning disability. One amendment has been accepted and I hope more are to come, but given what my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, in that scenario, someone might have to be helped by the doctor to make the decision, because of their level of capacity. When I have made the argument throughout our debates, that has never ever been doubted. The person who has been helped to make that decision may have decided, because they are a burden on their elderly parents, that they will not inform them. Again, that was the rationale of where I got to on Second Reading, frankly.

I see people with elderly parents, often now in their 70s or 80s, who have cared for that person throughout their life. As the Bill and the Mental Capacity Act are laid out, that person could go to the doctor to say, “I do not want my parents to know. I hear what you say, doctor, but under this provision of the Act”—clause 9 of the Bill—“I am not going to tell them.” Under the Mental Capacity Act, if the doctor had any queries about the capacity of that person to make those decisions, that doctor would have to assist them in making them. Let us be clear that that is what the Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides for, and that is what the code of practice says.

I am sorry to keep talking about myself, but as I have said previously in these debates, during covid I was the carer for my whole household. My wife was having chemo and both my children were off school. One of my children needed full-time care, and no carers were allowed in the house. In that period, I really saw the power dynamic. I know exactly when it was: on the evening of Maundy Thursday, my wife had an enormous epileptic seizure during her chemotherapy treatment. I remember being on the phone to the cancer nurse who was saying, “Put her in an ambulance.” I said, “I’m not putting her in an ambulance because of covid.” I am sorry to be so graphic, folks, but that evening I had my wife in one bed covered in vomit and my daughter in one bed lying in her own faeces. The next morning, my wife would have done anything to remove me from that situation, quite frankly.

We were so lucky: a few months later, my wife’s chemo was finished and she was cancer free. We are out of that pandemic, thank goodness, but there are people out there who have had a loved one by their side for 30, 40, 50 or 60 years and do not want to see them go through that pain anymore. They will not take the decision out of fear; those who have six months left do not know what their end will be, and whether it will be painful or not. They just do not want the person who has stood by them all those years to have to be their carer. That is the power dynamic.

On balance, because I believe in autonomy, I may well not support the amendments, but these are the issues that I have wrestled with, because as the Bill stands, someone could simply go to a doctor, the doctor could say, “Have you told your loved one—your partner, your husband, your wife?” and they could say, “No, I’m not going to, because I do not want them to suffer anymore, caring for me in these circumstances.”

As ever, the hon. Gentleman speaks very powerfully. Does he acknowledge that under the amendments, and under the Bill, it would be possible for a patient to proceed without informing their wider family, if they and the doctor conclude that it is not appropriate or necessary? The value of the amendments is that they would require a conversation to be had about why that is not happening. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that such a conversation would be appropriate?

That is what I have wrestled with. That conversation will happen, and at the end of it, I accept that the autonomy is with the individual, who may well make a decision that they believe is for the best but with which their loved one does not necessarily agree. I think there are examples from overseas of that having happened.

I agree about the primacy of autonomy, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that, given the status quo and the many stories that we have heard about individuals who took their lives but kept it secret from their families, whether by going to Switzerland or by doing it in a horrible way in lonely circumstances, a regulated atmosphere would makes it more likely that people will talk to their family about what their death will be like and, as we have learned from overseas, make arrangements for their family to be around them, or at least to say goodbye, as they move into that process? At the moment, because this area is unregulated, way more people do it in secret than need to.

I am not entirely persuaded. I think there is currently a mixture of cases, and there will potentially be a mixture of cases in future. I hear what the right hon. Member says, but my primary concern is about the way things are. As I say, I am minded not to support the amendments on balance, but I am concerned that we could end up hearing stories about someone’s loved one of 50 years, or their child with a learning disability, having had an assisted death—and the first they knew about it was when it was too late.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms McVey.

I feel that we are dancing on the head of a pin, but I oppose the amendment. Members across the debate have recognised that, as Dr Sarah Cox from the Association for Palliative Medicine said, it is always for the patient to decide. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley pointed out, both the original clause and the amendment rightly retain that decision with the patient. They also retain the discretion of the doctor, whether that is on an appropriate test or a best interests test.

I note that in its submission the Royal College of Physicians advocated the removal of the clause, saying that it goes beyond current practice. I support the clause on balance, because of the importance of these conversations and so on, but the physicians who are likely to carry out the conversations think that it is inappropriate to specify these conversations in primary legislation.

There are two phrases in the amendment that I think are entirely inappropriate. First, there is “concluded in good faith”. I am sure it is not the intent of the author and mover of the amendment, but it suggests that in other instances people might be acting other than in good faith. I commend the words from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich. We have to start from the point that doctors are operating in good faith. It is dangerous to set up a good faith test, as opposed to an “other faith” test, in primary legislation.

Secondly, I am certainly not trying to reopen the long debates we had about the Mental Capacity Act, but Members will recall that in those debates we were very clear that the “best interests” test should not and does not apply. Introducing language about best interests the first time in the Bill is very dangerous, and totally against the spirit and principle of what we have debated so far. For those reasons, I am against both amendments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central has made many of the points that I planned to, so I will be brief. The primacy of patient autonomy when it comes to familial relationships is a principle that should not be interfered with in the medical sphere, which this is—we can call it treatment or something else, but it is undoubtedly a relationship between a doctor and a person.

I agree with my hon. Friend on the term “good faith”. I do not doubt the motives, but it put forwards the proposition that a doctor would act in bad faith and not tell a family member. It is a rather bizarre drafting, and wholly unhelpful for the intent for which it was put forward.

The most alarming is the second part and the issue of “best interests”. I will not labour the point that my hon. Friend has made, but what is a doctor to do? A doctor is not a social worker. A doctor is not a family support worker. What questions are they to ask? If someone says, “Oh, I don’t really want to tell my next of kin, who is my sister. We fell out last year because of tit for tat,” is the doctor going to make a value judgment as to whether that argument is profound enough to stop the notification?

The point that the hon. Member makes is, I think, exactly the case—raising this conversation and talking about it is probably not in anyone’s best interests in the first instance. I think about my own situation. If I were to find myself terminally ill and falling within the scope of this law, and my mum had passed away, then my dad, who I have not spoken to in over a decade, with whom I have a very difficult and estranged relationship, would have to be notified and we would have to have a conversation about it. On my deathbed, the last thing I want to be thinking about is some childhood trauma being brought back before me in the confines of that terminal illness. Does the hon. Member agree that, while the intention might be good, the consequences could be damaging to the patient and their best interests?

I agree. I think in some of these debates—I am probably guilty of this as well—we forget the context in which we are operating: someone is dying, imminently. Therefore, how we approach these conversations, these assessments and this process must take that into account.

The hon. Gentleman accurately points out that doctors are not social workers or psychiatrists, and we are asking them to make a difficult judgment, in consultation with the patient, about whether they should engage wider family in the discussion. That goes to the broader point: we are imposing a huge obligation on doctors to make very complicated decisions about capacity, coercion and the psychosocial circumstances of the patient. The value of this amendment’s saying, “I think we should involve the family if it is safe to do so”—it might very well not be in certain circumstances—is surely to assist them in having the wider conversation that is necessary.

As we heard in evidence from the chief medical officer, doctors deal with capacity issues on a day-to-day basis; I am not sure they necessarily need assistance from family members in that regard. However, I appreciate the point—I was going to come to that—

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

I am going to make some progress, because I am not sure that point is crucial to the debate about this amendment; I am sure my hon. Friend will grab me afterwards. I did not mean to mischaracterise the evidence on that point.

I accept that there is a tension here. No man is an island, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire notes, and of course this process may cause upset to others. Equally, the input of third parties to the assessment of all the issues of eligibility is worth while, but it has to be dealt with in a proportionate way. When we debate clause 12—hopefully shortly—perhaps we can discuss that, and I hope to speak to that point.

However, this amendment is trying to crack that delicate nut with a huge hammer. It fundamentally changes the relationship between doctor and patient, and puts the doctor in a position where they do not have the skills or expertise to make that best interest decision. The amendment therefore fails, and that is why I will vote against it.

I am concerned that maybe I am misunderstanding the debate. For clarity, right now clause 9 says that

“in so far as the assessing doctor considers it appropriate,” they should

“advise the person to consider discussing the request with their next of kin and other persons they are close to.”

It will read very similarly if the amendment is agreed to. Instead, it will say,

“unless the assessing doctor has concluded in good faith, that this would not be in the person’s best interests, advise the person to consider discussing the request with their next of kin and other persons they are close to”.

That is a very subtle change—it is just a little more encouragement to consider contacting the family. No one here is telling the doctor that they must tell the patient to contact the family; it is just a little bit of strengthening to encourage that. I invite the hon. Gentleman to confirm if I have misinterpreted, but that is my understanding of the clause.

I will double check whether this is right, but the explanatory statement suggests that that is not the case. It says:

“This amendment would require the assessing doctor to inform the person’s next of kin that the person wishes to seek assistance to end their own life unless it is not in the person’s best interests.”

That is not what it says.

Even if that is not what it says, and even if the explanatory statement is wrong, it is not appropriate for doctors to advise patients what they should do with their family. Yes, they should consider it, but that is what this clause does. I will be voting against this amendment.

The amendments relate to whether the assessing doctor advises the person seeking assistance to end their own life to discuss that with their next of kin and other persons they are close to. Amendment 307 would change the test that the assessing doctor must apply before advising a person to consider doing so. The current test, as set out in clause 9(2)(f), is that

“in so far as the assessing doctor considers it appropriate,” they must

“advise the person to consider discussing the request with their next of kin and other persons they are close to.”

The effect of amendment 307 is that the assessing doctor must advise the person to consider discussing their request with their next of kin and other persons they are close to, unless the assessing doctor has concluded in good faith that it would not be in the person’s best interests to do so. It should be noted that the amendment as drafted would not require the assessing doctor to inform the person’s next of kin, although there is some confusion, as that appears to be what is suggested by the explanatory statement.

Amendment 308 is consequential to amendment 307 and requires that

“If that doctor considers that it is not in the person’s best interests under paragraph (f), this decision and the doctor’s reasoning must be documented.”

I hope those observations were helpful.

I have nothing to add, other than that I will not be supporting amendments 307 and 308. I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley, for Stroud and for Sunderland Central.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 423, in clause 9, page 6, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) To inform their assessment, the assessing doctor must—

(a) consider whether they should consult a health professional or social care professional with qualifications in, or experience of, a matter relevant to the person being assessed;

(b) consult such a professional if they consider that there is a need to do so.

(2B) Where an assessing doctor consults a professional under subsection (2A)(b), the assessing doctor must give a written record of the consultation to the other assessing doctor.”—

This amendment requires the assessing doctor to consider whether they should consult specialist health or social care professionals, and to consult them if they consider there is a need to do so. A record of any consultation must be shared with the other assessing doctor.

Amendment 415, in clause 9, page 6, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) When making an assessment under subsection (2), the assessing doctor must first ensure the provision of adjustments for language and literacy barriers, including the use of interpreters.”—

Amendment 6, in clause 9, page 6, line 27, leave out “may” and insert “must”.—(Sarah Olney.)

This amendment would require the assessing doctor to refer the person being assessed for a mental capacity assessment if the assessing doctor had doubt as to the person’s capacity.

Amendment 370, in clause 9, page 6, line 29, leave out

“registered in the specialism of psychiatry”

and insert

“a practising psychiatrist registered in one of the psychiatry specialisms”.

This is a drafting change.

Amendment 202, in clause 9, page 6, line 31, leave out “capability” and insert “capacity”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment corrects a typographical error.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.