Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between John Grady and Carla Lockhart

Report stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart]

No, I will not.

Amendment 443 sought to mandate that those substances be approved through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and either the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence or the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group processes. I therefore strongly support amendment 96, tabled by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), which

“ensures that drugs can only be approved if the Secretary of State is reasonably of the opinion that there is a scientific consensus that the drug is effective at ending someone’s life without causing pain or other significant adverse side effects.”

That is a common-sense approach that should attract support from across the House.

This week, more than 1,000 doctors wrote a powerful letter to all MPs to outline their deep concerns about this Bill, calling it a

“real threat to both patients and the medical workforce”.

I strongly urge this House and colleagues to read that letter before Third Reading. The Government’s own impact assessment does not provide any comfort with regard to the use of lethal drugs under the terms of the Bill, which the doctors’ letter picks up on, saying that

“there is no requirement for…[the drugs]…to undergo rigorous testing and approval that would be required of any other prescribed medication, nor indeed for them to be regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency”.

They go on to say that that is

“contrary to all good medical practice”.

This matters not just for regulation, but with regard to patient safety and complications. There is no requirement in the Bill to inform patients about how risks—including a prolonged death, rather than the promised peaceful and dignified death—will be managed. Complications do occur, and this is not scaremongering. In Oregon, when complications have been recorded, patients have experienced difficulty swallowing, drug regurgitation and seizures, and they have even regained consciousness. In Canada, a Canadian association has noted that patients have experienced regurgitation, burning and vomiting.

I draw Members’ attention to the written evidence submitted to the Bill Committee by a group of expert senior pharmacists and pharmacologists. In their submission, they warn that the approach of the Bill puts the cart before the horse. Specifically, they caution against proceeding without

“a comprehensive review of the evidence for efficacy and safety”,

and note that that review

“should be scrutinised by MPs before…consideration of legalising assisted suicide”.

These are not small details or incidental matters, yet, even at this late stage in the Bill’s passage through the Commons, we are still being asked to pass legislation without satisfactory answers to basic questions from experts in the field. That is simply not good enough.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak, and I will close by saying simply that whatever mitigating amendments may be passed, this Bill remains morally and ethically wrong. It is flawed and should not be passed.

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to amendments 8, 13, 82, 83, 85 and 86, but first I turn to amendment 77, which would extend some of the provisions of the Bill to Scotland. My review of the Bills in Scotland and England that are proceeding at the minute suggests that if someone moved permanently from Glasgow to Bradford or Newcastle, they would lose their right to an assisted death in Scotland and would have to wait a year to acquire their right to an assisted death in England. Imagine the heartbreak if somebody was diagnosed as terminally ill three or six months into their permanent move to Newcastle. That is a natural consequence of the law of habitual residence; there is long-standing case law on that. One matter that has not been addressed satisfactorily is how the relationship between Scots and English law and the Scottish and English Bills will be worked out. I suspect that that will require further primary legislation in this place and in Holyrood if both Bills pass.

I turn to the remainder of the amendments. Amendment 13 is very sensible and would introduce much-needed scrutiny and oversight to the appointment of a commissioner. The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) has set out in detail the very sensible reasons for the introduction of his suite of amendments. Amendment 86 is particularly important, because the panel faces real difficulties in compelling people to come before it if they have relevant evidence. It seems manifestly reasonable that the panel should hear from people who have relevant evidence. I am also concerned that the panel process does not provide a clear role for people who love and care for the person seeking an assisted death. Amendment 8 would require the panel actively to consider hearing from such people, which addresses a serious gap in the Bill.