Sarah Olney MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I hope the Minister can answer a question for me. I hear what he is saying about concerns with the amendments themselves, which makes a lot of sense, and the policy objectives of the hon. Member for Spen Valley. What I am concerned about is that in the Bill as drafted, notwithstanding that various amendments have been tabled, it is not clear what the doctor should do in the event of complications. There may well have been an earlier conversation with the patient, but the patient’s request may still leave the doctor in the position of committing a criminal offence. I would like to know whose responsibility it is to ensure that doctors are not left in that position, which could come about either because the Bill as drafted is not clear or the amendments do not make the appropriate clarification. The hon. Member for Spen Valley has done a marvellous job, but in terms of policy intention the Bill does not cover this aspect. The Minister is saying that it is his job only to ensure that the amendments are appropriate. I am still very concerned that there is a big gap here and that we are potentially leaving doctors in the very difficult position of not knowing whether or not carrying out the patient’s intentions would leave them in the position of breaking the law. I would like to know whose responsibility it is to ensure that doctors are not left in that situation.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to conclude my remarks. I support amendment 429 because it is important to provide clarity that when we say “with the patient,” we mean in the room. However, I invite the Minister to expand further on the resource requirement of assisted dying. I want the doctor to remain with the patient, which I think is critical. That is why I support amendment 429, but the implication of the Bill is a considerable resource requirement, particularly for GPs, and I would like the Minister to respond to that.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  To pick up on what the hon. Member for Spen Valley said, the multidisciplinary panel comes at the very end of the process. She has talked about the different stages, but they all occur in isolation. There is a doctor, then there is another doctor, and then there might be a psychiatric referral. We heard clearly in oral evidence about the value of the multidisciplinary panel referring to each other and taking evidence collectively. The strength of it would be that it occurred at the beginning of the process. I wonder whether the hon. Member will reflect on that.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I seek clarification. As drafted, in clause 12(1)(c), the High Court would give “a declaration that the requirements of this Act have been met”, but in new clause 21(6)(a), the panel is required to issue a certificate of eligibility, to which the Minister just referred. I seek the Minister’s guidance on whether it is the Government’s view that the High Court declaration has equal weight in law to the certificate of eligibility set out in new clause 21. I ask particularly because that certificate will be relied on for the purposes of suspending the Suicide Act 1961, under which a criminal offence would otherwise have been committed. The certificate of eligibility will need to be relied on to demonstrate that no criminal offence has been committed under that law. Is it the view of the Minister and the Government that a High Court direction, as originally required, can now be fully replaced by, and have equal weight with, a certificate of eligibility?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I take the point, but I still think it is necessary to have this additional safeguard to close a loophole that means that people could render themselves terminally ill within the space of a month and use the opportunity presented by the additional provision in the Bill for reducing the 14-day waiting period. This is a real concern of people who have reviewed this legislation. There is a possibility, as has been seen in other jurisdictions, that people could—I do not necessarily want to adopt the right hon. Gentleman’s language—hasten their eligibility for assisted dying through this particular method. All I am asking is that we close the loophole so that people will not be tempted to follow that very damaging path. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned. —(Bambos Charalambous.)

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I have tabled the amendment to exclude the possibility that somebody could render themselves, if that is the appropriate language, terminally ill by the mechanism of voluntarily stopping eating and drinking. The Bill before us is based on the principle that assisted suicide should be limited to those who are already dying—those with a terminal illness and a prognosis of six months or less—but there is growing evidence that that safeguard could be undermined by a practice known as voluntary stopping of eating and drinking, or VSED. That is when a person with mental capacity deliberately chooses to stop eating and drinking with the intention of hastening death. VSED is sometimes framed as an exercise of choice at the end of life, but in jurisdictions where assisted suicide is legal, it is increasingly being used as a means to an end—a way for individuals who do not meet the legal definition of terminal illness to qualify for lethal drugs. The logic is simple: a person has the right to refuse food and water, and if they do so, their health deteriorates and they may die within six months. Some doctors have accepted this as grounds to certify a patient as terminally ill—not because their underlying condition would have led to imminent death, but because of the self-imposed effects of dehydration and malnutrition. The strategy has become viable only because many jurisdictions have shortened or removed waiting periods for assisted suicide. The loophole works only if the time it takes to obtain lethal drugs is shorter than the time it takes to die from refusal of food and water. Under the Bill, the same loophole exists. Clause 13(2)(b) states that if a doctor “reasonably believes that the person’s death is likely to occur” within one month, the standard 14-day waiting period can be reduced to just 48 hours. If a person stops eating and drinking, their death will almost certainly be likely within one month. In other words, a person who is not terminally ill could make themselves eligible for an assisted death within 48 hours simply by refusing sustenance. Proponents of assisted suicide have been explicit: this is not simply a theoretical possibility—it is a co-ordinated strategy.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My original question was more about whether it has the same legal force as a High Court direction.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am just reflecting on the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire’s intervention. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the purpose either of the panel or the High Court judge is to establish beyond all doubt that if a person is assisted in their death, no crime is being committed, and that in order to establish that, we need to apply the highest standards of evidence? Whether an adversarial or an inquisitorial process is used to collect that evidence, there must be some sort of process. That may be uncomfortable for the patient but it is necessary for their friends, relatives and the doctors being asked to assist. That is really what we are trying to achieve.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 457, in clause 13, page 9, line 17, after “made,” insert “and have not voluntarily stopped eating and drinking”.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The point is that they may take the opportunity to use the further provision that exists for people whose death is expected within one month.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am trying to clarify this for my own benefit, because I am not familiar with some of these procedures. Is there a difference between a High Court judge leading an inquiry or sitting on a panel, using their legal experience to provide advice or recommendations or give an opinion, and having a judge sitting in the High Court, who, under the original wording of clause 12, would be giving a direction? If there is a difference, have we not crossed from one role to the other by introducing a panel rather than a High Court direction? Does that matter for the purposes of the legislation?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The point is that we want to preclude the possibility, at whatever stage it might happen, that somebody could deliberately render themselves terminally ill by the voluntary stoppage of eating—

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is exactly right. An assessment of whether somebody should qualify for assisted dying needs to be based on objective criteria. If those are not met, the only way that a second independent doctor should have a role is if either the circumstances have changed or, for whatever reason, the first doctor is unable to reach a conclusion. There must not be a situation in which the first doctor has made one decision and a second doctor arrives at a different decision, because that would imply a variability in the way the objective assessments are made. Not tightening this loophole would imply that we are prepared to allow such a variability across the medical profession, and I do not think we should allow that. My final amendment in this group is amendment 460. I am concerned that the word “particular” in clause 10(3) negates the subsection’s purpose of ensuring that only one second opinion from the co-ordinating doctor can be sought, because a person could withdraw their first declaration, make a new one and start the process afresh; that declaration would then not be the “particular” first declaration. By removing “particular”, the loophole would be closed, and the safeguard would be made more effective. This concern was brought out well in Disability Labour’s written evidence: “We are concerned that whilst 10(3) only allows for one second opinion to be sought, there appears to be nothing in the bill that stipulates a waiting period before a new application can be made. This risks applications being repeated until a supporting opinion can be obtained, thus negating the purpose of 10(3).” I hope the Committee will accept my amendments.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will speak to my amendments 458 to 460, which would tighten the process around seeking a determination from a second independent doctor if the first has refused to say that the criteria are met. The amendments relate to clause 10, which I will say more about when we come to it, but they have been selected for debate in this group. The risks of abuse in seeking a second independent doctor’s opinion are well illustrated by the evidence we have received from Dr Sharon Quick, the president of the Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation, who tells us about the experience of Dr Charles Bentz, who refused to provide a second opinion for a physician-assisted suicide for a patient he had referred to an oncologist for cancer treatment. The co-ordinating doctor persisted and clearly found a compliant second opinion, as two weeks later his patient was dead. Dr Charles Bentz said in his testimony: “I was caring for a 76 year-old man who came in with a sore on his arm. The sore was ultimately diagnosed as a malignant melanoma, and I referred him to two cancer specialists for evaluation and therapy. I had known this patient and his wife for over a decade. He was an avid hiker, a popular hobby here in Oregon. As he went through his therapy, he became less able to do this activity, becoming depressed, which was documented in his chart. During this time, my patient expressed a wish for doctor-assisted suicide to one of the cancer specialists. Rather than taking the time and effort to address the question of depression, or ask me to talk with him as his primary care physician and as someone who knew him, the medical oncologist called me and asked me to be the ‘second opinion’ for his suicide. She told me that barbiturate overdoses ‘work very well’ for patients like this, and that she had done this many times before. I told her that assisted-suicide was not appropriate for this patient and that I did not concur. I was very concerned about my patient’s mental state, and I told her that addressing his underlying issues would be better than simply giving him a lethal prescription. Unfortunately, my concerns were ignored, and approximately two weeks later my patient was dead from an overdose prescribed by this doctor. His death certificate, filled out by this doctor, listed the cause of death as melanoma. When I reviewed his chart, the radiation oncologist documented a clear diagnosis of depression. My patient did not die from his cancer, but at the hands of a once-trusted colleague who failed to recognize and treat his depression. This experience has affected me, my practice, and my understanding of what it means to be a physician. What happened to this patient, who was weak and vulnerable, raises several questions that I have had to answer.” I appreciate that, under the Bill, Dr Bentz could not have been the independent doctor as he already knew the patient and was treating him, but in that case that contributed to enhanced safety. Dr Bentz’s example illustrates the real risks of abuse in a person being able to seek the opinion of a second independent doctor. The starting point is that the task of the independent doctor is not that of a normal doctor. It is not to cure the patient or to provide advice about medical treatments: it is to check whether the eligibility requirements are met. It is a decision-making function, not a medical one—albeit, of course, a decision-making function that is informed by medical expertise. In the light of that function, it is not appropriate for someone to seek another decision simply because they do not like the answer that has been given. The independent doctor is asked to apply an objective set of criteria against the evidence in front of them in order to make an assessment. It is not the case—or it should not be—that a different doctor would come to a different assessment based on the same criteria and the same evidence. If we are doing our job properly in the Committee, we should not expect that a second opinion could be arrived at. I have no objection to provision being made for a person to see a second independent doctor if the first did not manage to finish the task. Nor do I object in respect of cases in which there is a change of circumstances—for example, if the patient’s condition deteriorates to such a degree that although the first independent doctor thought the six-month prognosis test was not met, it becomes clear that it is met—which is the point of my amendment 458. In such circumstances, it would make sense to allow the patient to go to a second independent doctor. Although my preference in such a situation would be to go back to the original independent doctor and ask them to reconsider in the light of the change of circumstances, that may not always be possible. Amendment 458 is an attempt to find a middle ground. Amendment 459 seeks to reduce the possibility of abuse by ensuring that the second independent doctor has available the reasons why the first independent doctor concluded that the person was not eligible. That would allow the second independent doctor to approach the assessment with open eyes. Such a report would be particularly useful when it comes to the detection of coercion or pressure, as the first independent doctor might have spotted something that the second independent doctor might not easily see. Let us consider the evidence of Dr Tim Howard, who has been deeply involved in end-of-life palliative care and assisted dying for many years. He has been a non-exec director of a health authority, a member of an ethics committee, a postgraduate teacher and, finally, chair of the General Medical Council fitness to practise tribunals, dealing with complex medico-legal principles and decisions in public. He also helped to set up the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, which separated medical standard setting and investigation from adjudication. Dr Howard says: “I remain uncomfortable that when either doctor, the assessing doctor or the independent doctor, declines to agree with a request for” assisted dying, “they take no further action. I feel that the reasons for their refusal should, as well as being given to the patient, be recorded in the patient’s notes, and given to any ‘second opinion’ independent doctor. This is not an attempt to bias; it is a value judgement that criteria are not being met, and as such, is sharing an early warning to be extra careful.” The Committee should note that he has, in his own words, “been a strong proponent of medical assistance in dying…and a member of Dignity in Dying for many years.”

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for amendment 6 and to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans for tabling it. I put on record, however, that I do not think that the panel that we are discussing addresses my earlier concerns. I wanted to make that absolutely clear by highlighting the further evidence from the Association for Palliative Medicine. The panel proposed by this group of amendments does not address its concerns, or the concerns of many other people who were saying that there needs to be a multi-professional team.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak briefly about an important point that the hon. Member for Spen Valley made. I want to get it on the record that I disagreed with something that she said. We heard a lot in the evidence sessions about the desirability of a multidisciplinary approach or a multi-professional team, and I listened particularly carefully to Dr Sarah Cox, who gave oral evidence to the Committee on 28 January on behalf of the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland. She made important and interesting points regarding the desirability of the involvement of multidisciplinary teams in relation to her area of expertise: palliative care. I am anxious that the panel that the hon. Member for Spen Valley is now proposing is being presented as a response to the comments of Dr Sarah Cox in relation to multi-professional teams, when it is clear that she meant something quite different. My interpretation of what she said was that the initial assessment should be done by a multi-professional team; what is being proposed here is something that happens much later in the process.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am not used to my amendments being accepted. The hon. Gentleman is, of course, absolutely right. Dr Matthew Doré, the palliative medicine consultant and honorary secretary of the Association for Palliative Medicine, said in written evidence: “Allowing patients to seek multiple opinions undermines procedural integrity. Furthermore, allowing the coordinating doctor to seek multiple opinions even further undermines the selection of doctors willing to provide AD”— that is, assisted dying. He goes on: “The lack of a centralised tracking system facilitates ‘doctor shopping’.” Notwithstanding the fact that amendment 459 has now been accepted, there is still grave concern about the possibility of doctor shopping. We should take steps to avoid it. That is why I am speaking against clause 10 in its entirety. Under clause 8, the independent doctor has five matters to verify: that the person is terminally ill; that they have capacity; that they have a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life; that they are acting voluntarily and without coercion or pressure; and they are over 18. The last requirement is unlikely ever to be in any form of doubt, so I will focus on the other four. The effect of clause 10 is to allow someone to be assisted to die when one out of three doctors who examined them had concluded that they were not terminally ill, that they lacked capacity, that they did not have a settled wish to die or they were coerced. It therefore raises a real risk that someone not actually eligible for assisted dying would none the less be so assisted. In such matters of life and death, we ought to proceed with great caution. Doctors can get things wrong, of course. If the first independent doctor did get it completely wrong, I would have no objection to the second independent doctor effectively acting as a form of appeal—or, to borrow the test from the law of medical negligence, if the first independent doctor reached a conclusion not supported by a reasonable body of medical opinion, of course it would be right for that opinion to be disregarded. But that is not what the Bill provides for, which is not an appeal or reconsideration but picking a new referee simply because the first answer was not desired. I still have misgivings about clause 10 notwithstanding the fact that it has been amended. I urge other Committee members to vote against it. I appreciate your indulgence, Ms McVey.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 461, in clause 11, page 7, line 15, leave out “or otherwise”.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I reiterate the concern I raised when speaking to my amendments this morning: as far as I can see, seeking the second opinion of a second independent doctor allows the person seeking assisted suicide to have a second bite at the cherry if their first independent doctor has not granted permission. I do not think anyone has an objection to going to a second independent doctor if the first independent doctor has been unable, through either death or illness, to complete the task; nor is there any objection if there has been a material change of circumstances, which my amendment 458 sought to add. However, the possibility of seeking the view of another doctor simply because the first one did not give the desired answer is a troubling one. There is no objection to patients seeking a second, third or even fourth opinion in medicine when it is about what different treatment pathways might be available, but there is a crucial difference between seeking different appropriate treatment options and what is being proposed in the Bill. In the Bill, the function of the two doctors is not primarily diagnostic or advisory; it is a safeguarding role. The doctors will have been entrusted by Parliament to make sure that the criteria for assisted dying are met. Their determination makes the difference between a lawful act and the commission of an act that, as per clause 24, Parliament would still regard as sufficiently serious to be a crime. Their role is therefore that of a decision maker, and in no other setting can someone go to a different decision maker if they do not like the answer given by the first. Even in appeals before our courts, an appellate judge would not interfere with a decision simply because they would have reached a different conclusion; the appellate judge must consider that the decision was in some way incorrectly reached. It is also true that in some settings one can ask a decision maker to reconsider a matter, but that is not what is being proposed in clause 10 either. Instead, the clause allows the person to try again with a different referee if the first one did not give the desired answer. It is true that there is an added layer of protection from the High Court or the possibility of a panel, but under the Bill as it currently is there is no procedure whereby the High Court or the panel will hear from the first independent doctor. That is concerning. They would have to go simply on the basis of the second independent doctor, without any awareness of why the two disagreed.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad to have had that clarification; however, it is really important to reflect on the fact that Dr Sarah Cox said that it would be considerably preferable to have the input of a multidisciplinary team at the earliest possible stage. That is not what is being proposed with these new clauses.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member, but I think she is responding to a slightly different point from the one that I made. There was further written evidence from Dr Doré, the honorary secretary of the Association for Palliative Medicine, on 25 February. He wrote: “To clarify any misunderstanding, the current Bill does not align with the standard multi-professional team…decision-making process used across the health service. Under the Bill, patient assessments are conducted solely by two doctors without input from a wider MPT. While an amendment proposes the involvement of a panel—including a social worker and psychiatrist—this panel is introduced only at the end of the process and does not participate in the patient’s direct assessment. We wish to make it clear that the point that Dr Cox was making in oral evidence was that having two independent doctors, working alone, is not an adequate model to safeguard either patients or professionals, and that stipulating that the initial assessments must be carried within a multi-professional team model would strengthen the Bill.”

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment made: 206, in clause 11, page 7, line 24, leave out subsection (3).— (Kim Leadbeater.) See the statement for Amendment 188. Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.