make something about it. i will make something about it. i will make some progress. some of the most important voices in this debate are of course those of people currently living with a terminal illness. having a terminal illness. having a terminal diagnosis is perhaps a situation where it is very hard if not impossible to know how you would feel. i have met many terminally real people over recent weeks and everyone is in my thoughts today. sophie, here today, diagnosed with stage four secondary breast cancer which has spread to her lungs, liver, pelvis. she is allergic to opioids. she knows her pain is very unlikely to be able to be managed. she has a 17—year—old daughter and all she asked us to have the choice to say goodbye to her at a time of her choosing in circumstances she can have some control over. and for her daughter to remember her as the vibrant, positive woman she is. nathaniel, alsojoining us nathaniel, also joining us today, nathaniel, alsojoining us today, stage four incurable bowel cancer, now in his liver

and brain, like many of us, he says he does not know if he would choose an assisted death, but he simply cannot understand why anyone would want to deny him the choice. he says, i wish to live as fully as i can and for as long as possible, but when the time comes, nat also wants the right to die with dignity and compassion. another very emotional lady came up to me at a recent interfaith event, she and her husband thanked me for putting the bill forward and she said, i am a proud christian and i am guided by my faith but i also have terminal cancer and i want the right to choose a compassionate death. i know there has been much discussion about the views of people who hold religious beliefs about the subject, i fully respect the beliefs, i do not intend to say much more about this, other than i know there are a rage micro range of views on faith communities. some of the most powerful conversations i have had have been with people of faith ——

there are a range of views. some have said, who are they to stop someone else who may want to make that choice? mr speaker... i hope i have set out the problem that very clearly exists. let me set out how the bill can address this problem safely and effectively. if this was to become law, it contains the most robust safeguards and protections in the world. there are very strict eligibility criteria and multiple layers of checks and safeguards embedded in the bill, none of which exist at the moment. as we have seen. i made a very conscious decision to name the bill terminally ill adults (end of life) bill rather than anything else, the title can never be changed, it ensures it is only adults who are dying that can never come within its scope. this bill is not about people choosing between life and death, it is about giving dying people who

have six months or less to live autonomy about how they die and the choice to shorten their death. the bill does not apply to people with mental health conditions, it does not apply to the elderly, it does not apply to people with chronic health conditions, it does not apply to disabled people. unless of course they have a terminal illness, in which case they would and should be entitled to the same rights as anyone else. yes, i will. entitled to the same rights as anyone else. yes, iwill. i entitled to the same rights as anyone else. yes, i will. i am grateful. anyone else. yes, iwill. i am grateful-— anyone else. yes, iwill. i am grateful. one group of people not often talked _ grateful. one group of people not often talked about - grateful. one group of people not often talked about are - grateful. one group of people| not often talked about are the learning disabled. in clause nine 3p it's as if an assassin doctor has any doubt as to the capacity of the person they may refer them for a further psychiatric assessment. would the honourable member consider if the bill is voted for today, which engage in a debate about whether the language should be strengthened to must and whether the training of the assessor is strengthened as well? ,, ., , .,

well? she also highlights a community _ well? she also highlights a community who _ well? she also highlights a community who we - well? she also highlights a community who we must l well? she also highlights a - community who we must consider in light of this bill and i would absolutely be open to that conversation, very valid point. different views within the disabled community, as professor of disability research, shakespeare says, it is unacceptable people with disabilities continue face social stigma and inequalities. it would be a mistake to conclude we should oppose assisted dying until wider problems are fixed, it is paternalistic and wrong to imply inequalities will be resolved by reducing choices. a clear transparent framework is better for everyone. clear transparent framework is betterfor everyone. he is right. there is of course to work to do in the fight for equality for people with disabilities, but once again it is not either or. i will campaign for those rights but i will also campaign for the rights of terminally real people because their rights are as important as anybody else. would my honourable friend give

way? i am very grateful. huge respect for the way in which she has conducted this debate over the past... my concern is she has focused today on the individual and the individual choice. but we are here to legislate for society as a whole. and in legislating what we are saying if we pass this bill is that this is ok to take that choice. there will be some people... that choice. there will be some peeple- - -_ that choice. there will be some people. . ._ there - people... absolutely. there will be some _ people... absolutely. there will be some people - people... absolutely. there will be some people who i people... absolutely. there | will be some people who are people... absolutely. there i will be some people who are in that situation, six months of their life to go, who actually feel, ought i to do this? is this is something i should do? it brings into play a whole set of considerations which are about, is it betterfor of considerations which are about, is it better for my family? is it financially better for my family? is it financially betterfor my family? family? is it financially better for my family? in ways that at the moment are out of

scope. so, ithink that at the moment are out of scope. so, i think rather than simply focusing on the individual suffering, which we all recognise is a cheat, we must actually broaden it out to the impact the legislation will have on society as a whole —— is acute. have on society as a whole -- is acute-— is acute. actually, this bill will give — is acute. actually, this bill will give society _ is acute. actually, this bill will give society a - is acute. actually, this bill will give society a much i is acute. actually, this bill- will give society a much better approach towards the end of life. we already seen conversations about dying and death in a way we have not seen, i don't think enough in this country. we have to take a holistic view and that has happened in other countries and jurisdictions. having deep and meaningful conversations about death and dying is really important. but he quite nicely brings me onto the protections and safeguards within the bill. under this... and safeguards within the bill. underthis... i and safeguards within the bill. under this. . ._ under this. .. i am grateful to have a giving _ under this. .. i am grateful to have a giving way. _ under this. .. i am grateful to have a giving way. on - under this. .. i am grateful to l have a giving way. on precisely that point, a decade ago i voted against this bill, i felt

may there are more things i need to know. she is absolutely right, we haven't talked about death again for ten years, the truth is, if we vote against the bill today, it will be the end of the conversation again for another decade. end of the conversation again foranother decade. he end of the conversation again for another decade.— for another decade. he is absolutely _ for another decade. he is absolutely right. - for another decade. he is absolutely right. how - for another decade. he is l absolutely right. how many people will go through the situations i have described if there are another ten years before we address this matter? under this bill, before we address this matter? underthis bill, i before we address this matter? under this bill, i will not take any more interventions, very conscious lots want to speak. any time in a real person who wants to be considered for an assisted death would have to undertake a thorough process involving two doctors and a high courtjudge, no otherjurisdiction in the world has those layers of safeguarding. the person requesting assistance must have mental capacity and they settled which at every stage. that means they must repeatedly demonstrate they understand information relevant to their decision, the ability to retain information and to use the

information and to use the information as part of the process of making the decision. we know capacity can fluctuate which is why it is assessed at every step of the process. i am sorry, i will not take back what i need to make progress. the court must speak to one of the doctors and can hear from anyone else they deem necessary. if there is evidence of, the court will not approve. the court order could also be revoked. the person can change their mind at any time with periods of reflection built in. having consulted at the highest levels in the judiciary and the medical profession, i know they can and will fulfil these safeguarding responsibilities, and have the expertise to do so. this is not for a new territory for doctors. doctors working in partnership with other clinicians are already required to manage complexity and end—of—life decision—making. i follow the request of the bma doctors should be under no obligation whatsoever to participate. but

if they do, they will receive appropriate training and support and doctors should be able to use their professional judgment when and if they conversation takes place. taking their cue from the patient, as they do in many other issues. i welcome this patient centred approach. many doctors feel the change in the law would safeguard clinicians and patients by making everything explicit. when it comes to the detail of what assisted dying would look like, we have the benefit of drawing on the experience of 31 1510 00:09:31,620 --> 00: