Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Rebecca Smith
Main Page: Rebecca Smith (Conservative - South West Devon)Department Debates - View all Rebecca Smith's debates with the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Rebecca Smith Excerpts(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Kinnock
As a Minister at the Dispatch Box, with the Government being neutral, I am not commenting on the policy intent of the Bill. What I am saying is that the new clause could create significant uncertainty. For example, it is not clear how the standard it introduces would interact with the definition of “terminal illness” set out in clause 2, which requires that a person’s death
“can reasonably be expected within six months”,
as it is not clear whether “reasonably be expected” fits within the balance of probabilities threshold or is beyond reasonable doubt.
Amendment 101 would exclude any person with a learning disability, including people with Down syndrome, from a preliminary discussion about assisted dying unless they raise the subject themselves, irrespective of whether they would otherwise be eligible. That may be subject to challenge under various international agreements, including the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and article 14 of the European convention on human rights, which prohibits disability discrimination.
Amendment 102 would introduce a requirement that
“the registered medical practitioner must ensure that the person has no remediable suicide risk factors which pose a significant risk to their life”
before holding a preliminary discussion under clause 5. The terms “remediable suicide risk factors” and
“a significant risk to their life”
have not been defined, so the amendment may be difficult to operationalise.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I tabled amendment 102 in good faith, as I thought it might be workable.
I want to reflect on what the Minister said at the beginning of his speech. I do not recall ever being offered an opportunity to pass my amendments to Government officials to ensure that they would be workable. Given the scope of what we are debating this afternoon, it sounds very much like any amendments that have not been tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) had no chance of being taken forward unless she accepted them.