Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will make some progress, if I may.

This is essentially about providing flexibility for doctors while ensuring continuity of care for patients, and I hope colleagues can support new clause 11.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will make a little more progress, if I may, because a lot of people want to speak.

New clause 12 ensures that there is thorough reporting of instances where the co-ordinating doctor concludes that the patient does not meet the strict eligibility criteria set out in the Bill. It is very important that this data is recorded, but at present there is no requirement for the co-ordinating doctor to produce a report when they are not satisfied about all matters set out in clause 23(5) and will not provide the person with the approved substance. That lack of a reporting obligation does not align with the rest of the Bill—hence new clause 12, which I am sure colleagues will feel it is important to support.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That would not be an issue, because copies of the report would be given to the patent, the co-ordinating doctor if they are not in the patient’s GP’s practice, and the commissioner, so that information would be recorded, and it is very important that it is. The report must set out the reasons—

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will make some progress, if I may. I am trying to be very open to interventions, but I do need to crack on.

The report must set out why the co-ordinating doctor is not satisfied and must contain an explanation of why the patient cannot proceed with the assisted dying process. The co-ordinating doctor must give a copy of the report to the person, to the person’s GP practice if they are not a practitioner within that practice, and to the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. That reflects the thorough and robust reporting and monitoring mechanisms throughout the Bill.

I turn to the other amendments in my name. I will try to keep my comments succinct, as many colleagues wish to speak. Amendment 56 ensures that the co-ordinating doctor gives the commissioner a copy of the patient’s first declaration. That enables the commissioner to carry out their monitoring responsibilities under clause 45. Amendments 57 and 61—

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will.

[Dr Johnson]

Persistence pays off. When considering the Bill, I had presumed that the doctor concerned would be a senior clinician—a senior doctor—but page 63 of the impact assessment refers to pre-registration doctors, who have just completed medical school and are on a provisional registration. Will the hon. Lady confirm that it is her intention that the provisions in the Bill may be carried out by the most junior doctors, as well as by more senior consultants and general practitioners?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Given her background, she knows what she is talking about. Regulations will set out the level of expertise required by the doctor, but there will also be training for every single doctor taking part in the assisted dying process. That is done well around the world, so there is work we can build on in that regard.

Amendments 57 and 61 are essentially tidying-up amendments that modify the wording of the Secretary of State’s duty to set out training requirements in clauses 7 and 10. That fits with the intervention from the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). Training is of paramount importance within the assisted dying process, and there will be a period of years in which anyone who opts in to be part of this process will have thorough and robust training.

Due to amendments made in Committee, with very good intention, the current wording suggests that the regulations themselves must include details about training. That obviously does not make sense and would be unworkable, as it would have to be done separately. Similarly, amendment 58 removes unclear drafting as a result of changes made in Committee that could have the effect that the regulations have to contain training about training, which obviously does not make sense.

Amendments 59, 52, 74 and 62 are also tidying-up amendments that are necessary as a result of the introduction of compulsory training for all doctors and panel members in domestic abuse and coercive control, following amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), which the Bill Committee voted unanimously to accept.

Amendment 74 ensures that the term “domestic abuse” in the Bill has the same meaning as in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. It clarifies the definition of “domestic abuse” and ensures that the term is consistent with existing legislation. It provides for a very broad definition to capture the full range of behaviours, including physical or sexual abuse, violent or threatening behaviour, controlling or coercive behaviour, economic abuse, and psychological, emotional or other abuse. It does not matter whether the behaviour consists of a single incident or a course of conduct. These really important amendments address concerns about coercion and provide additional layers of safeguarding within the Bill. As such, I hope colleagues support them.

Amendment 60 makes provision, corresponding to the provision in clause 12 about the death or illness of a doctor from whom a second opinion is sought, for a further referral to be made where, before reporting, the independent doctor dies through illness, or is unwilling or unable to act. The amendment once again ensures continuity of care and is an important detail to add to the Bill.

Amendments 67 and 68 clarify the provision of clause 23 in cases where an approved substance requires administration via a medical device. The current drafting of the clause is not clear about whether it is allowable to administer the approved substance via a device, which it is. The amendment provides clarity for clinicians.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I agree. In the interests of time, I will make some progress.

The current situation, whereby fully funded palliative and end-of-life care is not available in certain postcodes, means that those unfortunate patients do not have a real choice. We know that 25% of people who die in this country do not get the palliative care they need—that is more than 100,000 people a year—and if the Bill goes through, they will be offered a fully funded assisted death as the only reliable way to end their pain. That is no choice. I urge Members who want to see improvements in palliative and end-of-life care to vote for my amendment 80, and for amendments 30 and 31, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, if they are pushed to a vote.

[Dr Johnson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rebecca Paul]

I will not because I do not have much time.

I will move on to the lack of a best interests test in the Bill, which my new clause 16 seeks to remedy. Patient autonomy is of course important, but it must be balanced against what is in someone’s best interests. In certain situations, when it is in their best interests, treatment can be given against a patient’s will—for example, force-feeding a young girl with anorexia. It is not an easy balance to get right, but in the absence of any best interests test in the Bill, following the process rigidly would lead to devastating results in some cases.

The Bill currently prioritises autonomy of the patient in a specific moment of time, rather than what might be in their best interests in the long run. It makes no allowance for the fact that someone may feel a certain way temporarily due to other considerations. For example, when someone has just received a terminal diagnosis, it can understandably cause a depressive state and suicidal feelings, but those feelings do not necessarily last, so it may be in the best interests of the patient to allow a little time to pass, to give them a little breathing space before considering the assisted death route.

New clause 16 essentially tries to provide a best interests test by excluding certain reasons, other than the alleviation of pain, that might be driving a patient’s decision. For example, we have heard a great deal about the internal pressure from patients themselves that is driven by their concern not to be a burden, and we heard clearly in Committee that a patient could tell a doctor that they are want an assisted death only for financial reasons, and that would still be approved. We know from the experience of overseas territories that patients will often opt for an assisted death because of social and welfare issues, such as being homeless.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Given her many years as a constituency MP in the same borough as me, we both know many such vulnerable people. Dr Rachel Clarke, a hospital palliative care doctor, said:

‘If, for instance, you say to a vulnerable patient who has just been told they have a diagnosis of terminal cancer, “Have you thought about assisted dying?”, I would suggest that stating it broadly like that is a form of pressure and that you are potentially unintentionally coercing that patient.’––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 75, Q93.]

So we are in a very difficult space, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) highlighted, with his background as a practising GP. We recognise that. As I have said, this is an imperfect process to deal with that challenge, but it is a very different set of circumstances compared with the other advice that doctors give.

[Dr Johnson]

rose—

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Speaking of doctors, I give way to the hon. Lady.

[Dr Johnson]

I rise to support the hon. Lady’s new clause 1. As a doctor, I am very aware of the trust that the public place in doctors and the seriousness with which they take what we say. If a doctor gives somebody information about assisted dying, it is quite reasonable for that person to think that the doctor is suggesting that they should take part in that process, or is hinting that their death will be dreadful and trying to be kind. If doctors are allowed to say, “This is a good process,” more people will take it up than would otherwise have wanted to.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank the hon. Lady.