Lord Deben
Main Page: Lord Deben (Conservative - Life peer)
Lord Deben (Con)
Does the noble Baroness not find it peculiar that people who are very keen on employment rights in every other circumstance are not keen on employment rights in these circumstances and put their views on assisted suicide ahead of the right of very ordinary workers to say, “I don’t want to be part of it”?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The precise knowledge of who does it, where the list is kept, who registers with whom—for example, whether they register with the commissioner—is about detailed implementation, and I am strongly of the view that we should not try to get into the nitty-gritty in relation to that in the Bill. I recognise why the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, proposes putting this into the Bill, but I hope she will understand why, first, in relation to opt-in, I am not sure it quite gets there, and, secondly, in relation to a register, I am not in favour of it at the moment.
Lord Deben (Con)
I am genuinely trying to help the noble and learned Lord for this reason: I am concerned about the person who wishes to avail themselves of this Bill. I do not understand how you do that effectively unless you can look at a list and get the person you want. I am concerned that those of us who want real protection must not overcomplicate the Bill, even if we are against it. That is why I am genuinely saying to the noble and learned Lord that if there is no list, I do not understand how somebody can, with ease and confidence, take part in something that I do not like but that, if it were the law, would be available. That is what I am concerned about. If there is no list, there is a great deal of obfuscation. It seems to me that it should be part of the policy of those presenting the Bill to expect a list.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his assistance in relation to this matter. As far as I am concerned, precisely how one identifies who is available to do it should be worked out in the implementation because it goes to publicity and to what is the most convenient way of doing it, and I do not think that normally or sensibly this should be in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cass, is proposing that in the course of the conversation, which is referred to in Clause 12, the person should say that this is their own choice. I think that is not necessary or appropriate where one of the things that the two doctors and the panel have to be satisfied of is the fact that this is the clear, settled and sustained view of the person. I do not think that putting words in, as it were, is appropriate.
I understand why the noble Baroness says that you should have the two doctors together, and they should refer to what is, in effect, the written record of the multidisciplinary team. If that is available, they should definitely do that, but I do not think it will be available in every case. One hopes that it will be, but I cannot be sure that it will, and that should not be a bar to doing it. I see the force of saying that the two doctors should do it together, but my anxiety is that, if you are looking for genuine safeguards, you have to have a position where the two doctors who have reached a view that the conditions are satisfied have done so independently of each other. I can see the convenience of doing it together, but I think it has to be done separately instead.
I have had the benefit of discussing with the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, many of the ideas that she has put forward; I have found that incredibly helpful. One of her helpful insights is that, in reality, this will in effect have to be some sort of specialist service. If you want somebody to help you in relation to this, it has to be somebody who has expertise in doing it. But that insight does not mean that it has to be completely separate from all the other care you are being provided with. Frequently, when someone is dying, they have a variety of specialists helping them as part of a team. If assisted dying is what the patient wants, I do not think that the specialist should feel that they have to be completely separated from the rest of the team looking after the patient.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
No, I do not think it will because the nature of the safeguards in relation to everybody is such that the idea that an assisted death will be forced on people is wrong.
Lord Deben (Con)
There is one last thing I would like clarification on. When the noble and learned Lord spoke about hospices, he said in a slightly confusing way that that did not necessarily refer to care homes. I am concerned about care homes that are run by organisations for which this is unacceptable. Are they going to be protected and be able to say that from the beginning, so that anybody going into a care home of that kind knows precisely the terms under which that care home is run?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The only organisational exceptions that I am contemplating—the exceptions in Clause 31 are for individuals—are in relation to hospices, not care homes.