Juliet Campbell MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

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

  More

  I will speak to amendment 142, which would insert “and how it will be administered” into the Bill. It would require the assessing doctor to explain and discuss with the person how the substance that might be provided to assist them to end their life will be administered. The amendment would be a key step towards giving peace of mind to a terminally ill individual who is seeking an assisted death. It would also preserve their autonomy right up to the final stage. Ensuring that the method of administration is thoroughly explained would provide the doctors and the individual seeking an assisted death with the opportunity to consider the options—if there are options available to them—and decide which method would best preserve the autonomy of that individual. Assisted dying presents many opportunities for individuals to be coerced, especially at the final stage—death itself. Therefore, the method of administration is key information for the individual to know, and it is not sufficient for it to be withheld from them. We must make it a prerequisite of the Bill that it is supplied. Making an informed choice about the assisted death pathway involves careful consideration, and knowing and understanding every step of the process. It is appropriate for the person to maintain their agency. Minimising the role played by the doctor at the administration stage is also key to ensure that the final act belongs to that individual. We must acknowledge that many individuals seeking assisted death may experience significant mobility and physical limitations, particularly because of their terminal illness. Those limitations can affect their ability to engage with the process in ways other people may take for granted. For example, a patient suffering from severe weakness, paralysis or chronic pain might have difficulty physically positioning themselves or administering some types of substance, depending on the options available. A person may have difficulty swallowing and would not be able to ingest a substance in the form of a pill, but they may be able to autonomously operate a system that would allow them intravenous administration. In these cases, the method of administration must be carefully considered and explained in a way that accommodates the patient’s unique physical needs. By discussing the challenges openly at this stage, doctors can help to ensure that the patient understands the options open to them, while making the process as comfortable and accessible as possible. Addressing their mobility and physical limitations in this context is not only a matter of practicality, but a reflection of our compassion and respect for that individual’s circumstances. By limiting the doctor’s physical role, we also ensure that the patient retains control over the process. Making the act of self-administration as independent as possible ensures that the final part of the process gives the patient agency in choosing how and when to end their life. The individual must maintain a primary role in their death, but the actual administration is the final assurance and assertion of the individual’s choice to end their life. The amendment emphasises the importance of ensuring that, within the Bill, the doctor’s involvement is limited to preparation and support. That is key to making sure that the patient’s final moments are self-directed and as free from any unnecessary external interventions as possible. Subsection 6 of clause 18, on the provision of assistance, discusses the role of the doctor in administration. It says that a doctor might “assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.” By ensuring that the method of administration of the substance aligns with the physical capabilities that a person has to self-ingest, which may be limited, we limit the role played by the doctor at this crucial stage, and limit the chance of the coercion of the individual or of the individual having a death that lacks real autonomy. In conclusion, amendment 142 plays a crucial role in safeguarding the rights and autonomy of a terminally ill individual seeking an assisted death. By ensuring that the method of administration is clearly explained, we empower patients to make an informed, autonomous decision about the way in which they wish to end their life.

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

  More

  The probe that I have on that point is that the individual who is seeking the assisted death, and the doctors who have been working with that person, really have all the information. I am trying to ascertain, if we are not going to agree on this amendment, who else they would be seeking information from. Is there a risk if they are getting evidence from family members or other people, or having them give evidence or speak on behalf of that declaration?

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

  More

  I will speak to amendment 127, which is a probing amendment. I will not press it to a vote, but the reason I tabled it is that I felt that the phrase “as soon as reasonably practicable” was a little vague. I was taking into consideration the fact that we often talk about people who have six months to live, who are eligible for the assisted death, but sometimes people learn later on and do not have six months. If people are thinking about having an assisted death, there might be some pace at which the doctors need to work together—the co-ordinating doctor and whoever else they speak to. I put 10 days, because I needed to put something down, and that is why I am saying amendment 127 is probing, but I do think that we need to be a little tighter with the timeframe in which we enable doctors to speak to each other, so that the patient is aware of what is happening. Also, if the patient wants to change their mind and is speaking to another doctor, they would know what timeframe they have got. The amendment is probing, and I will not press it to a vote.

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

  More

  rose—

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

  More

  I will speak to amendments 125 and 126, which are linked to new clause 7. Given the discussion we have just had, and given that amendment 341 has been made, I will not push amendment 125 to a vote. Amendment 126, however, provides that any medical practitioner who wishes to provide assistance under the Bill must have opted in to a register or a service for practitioners who are comfortable with providing care related to assisted dying. In other conversations, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has said that the opt-in model is provided within the Bill. The challenge is that it is not explicit in the Bill, and I would like to see it so. The BMA wrote in its evidence to the Committee: “The Bill should be based on an ‘opt-in’ model, so that only those doctors who positively choose to participate are able to do so. Doctors who opt in to provide the service should also be able to choose which parts of the service they are willing to provide (e.g. assessing eligibility and/or prescribing for eligible patients)…An opt-in model is not explicit in the Bill…We urge the Committee to make it explicit in the Bill that this is an opt-in arrangement for doctors.” The BMA says that it wants it explicit in the Bill, and at the moment it is not. The Royal College of General Practitioners aligned with this viewpoint, stating that an explicit opt-in system is completely necessary in the Bill. It is my hope that members of the Committee will support amendment 126, which I intend to push to a vote.

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

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed : 288, in clause 4, page 2, line 36, at end insert— “(6) All efforts to dissuade the person from ending their own life must be recorded in the clinical records and subsequently made available to the medical examiner.”— (Sean Woodcock.) This amendment would require the coordinating doctor to record efforts to dissuade the person from taking their own life and subsequently make this available to the medical examiner . Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

  More

  Throughout the debate, we have spoken consistently about things that happen normally within medical practice, but the amendment we are discussing would move us away from ordinary practice. Could the Minister explain why we would do that?

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

  More

  Based on the fact that we agreed on amendment 341, I am prepared not to press amendment 125 to a vote. It is amendment 126 that I am proposing.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 125, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, leave out from start of line to end of line 36 and insert “who is on the Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners.” This amendment provides that only a medical practitioner who is on the Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners as provided for in NC7 would have a person referred to them.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Women’s Health · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this debate. Menopause is a biological process that marks the end of a woman’s menstrual cycle and fertility, and it typically occurs between the ages of 45 and 55. It is a universal experience for women around the world. The journey to that point is known as perimenopause, which can last for several years, and that is what I will focus on today. The perimenopausal stage in a woman’s health remains in the shadows, under-prioritised and under-resourced by policymakers, employers and healthcare providers alike. Perimenopause is overlooked despite its relevance to health, education, employment and demography. During the transition into the menopause, a woman’s body undergoes various changes as it prepares to end its reproductive years. Typically, the transition begins in the mid-40s, but it can start as early as the mid-30s and last as long as into the mid-50s. It usually lasts for about four years, but it can extend to up to eight years. During the perimenopausal stage, oestrogen levels fluctuate, leading to irregular menstrual cycles, and as the ovaries gradually produce less oestrogen, it can cause various other symptoms. Perimenopause is diagnosed based on symptoms and menstrual history, and the treatment focuses on managing the symptoms, including through lifestyle changes, hormone therapy—although less so—and other medications. The symptoms of perimenopause can affect daily activities. They affect work and relationships. Women in my Broxtowe constituency have told me that they have needed to take time off work due to the symptoms, which they did not understand and neither did their healthcare professionals. We know that absences from work have a significant impact on our economy. As has been said, it can cost billions of pounds per year. Some women need to reduce their working hours, to take extended leave, or to leave the workforce entirely. This can affect their career progression, depending on how young they are. At a time when the Government are focusing on growing our economy, we cannot ignore the economic costs of not helping and supporting women in their perimenopause. Few women seek help or attention, and due to a lack of understanding they receive very little support if they do. Their symptoms might be subtle and they will come on gradually. They might not even know that they are connected to the hormone fluctuations of the menopause transition. Many women do not even understand the signs and symptoms of the perimenopausal stage, as the menstrual cycle continues. This lack of awareness and education about the perimenopause, among both women and healthcare providers, leads to underdiagnosis and undertreatment. I raise this issue because I would like to go back to my constituency and assure people that perimenopause will be included in any future Government policy.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  A very quick question: does the hon. Member agree that the weight of a doctor’s words weighs heavily on patients?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendment 124 would prevent a registered medical practitioner from discussing the provision of assistance under the Bill unless it is first raised by the person themselves. This is very similar to another discussion we have had. The reason for my amendment is that the doctor will be suggesting, offering or endorsing assisted dying as a treatment pathway—and that would be new—and the patient may take that as a recommendation or endorsement, which could impede their freedom to autonomously choose assisted death. Another reason I tabled the amendment is that the Bill risks exacerbating the existing pervasive health inequalities. I am very concerned that biases, both conscious and unconscious, have the potential to significantly impact the treatment pathways offered to people, particularly those who fall under the nine protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010. Medical practitioners have the potential to influence the treatment pathways offered to people, particularly those from those backgrounds, and I therefore see no reason why assisted dying would be offered as a treatment pathway. I was thinking of the following example. Under maternity services, we also have abortion services. If someone presented themselves to a doctor and said that they were in the early stages of pregnancy, they would not be offered abortion as an option; they would be asked, “Do you want to have your baby at home or at a hospital? Would you like shared care between your GP and the hospital?” They would not be asked, “Would you like an abortion?” because that is not part of the pathway. For that to happen, the person would go to the doctor and say, “I am pregnant and I would not like to have this baby.” It is therefore important that the individual first approaches the doctor or clinician and says, “I am interested in an assisted death” or “I would like an assisted death.” Assisted dying should not be a treatment option, even if it is part of end-of-life care. The doctor’s position is one of knowledge and expertise that far exceeds that of their patient, and that places them in a position of power and influence over their patient. Given that power imbalance, the doctor’s suggestion seems like a recommendation. If an individual chooses assisted death because it feels like a recommendation, that decision is no longer autonomous. I will quote a GP, Dr Hannah Denno, who put in some written evidence. She cited her role as a GP as being one that needs her patients to take her words as guidance: “I believe that in my role as a GP, to make such a suggestion”— choosing assisted death, for example— “would put pressure on some patients to accept it. At a time of vulnerability many patients are very sensitive to any suggestions raised by a health care professional.”

• 25 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to go back to the point about making the Bill more complicated by putting layer upon layer on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West spoke about health inequalities and how not everyone is given the same advice to the same level. If we were to introduce a palliative care specialist we would guarantee that everybody was given the same advice and information. We could therefore help reduce the health inequalities and inequalities of access to information that we know exist in our healthcare system.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The amendment would change the definition of what it is to be terminally ill, from having an “inevitably” to a “typically” progressive illness, disease or medical condition that cannot be reversed by treatment. The limits of medicine, and where they manifest in our healthcare system, have been repeatedly discussed and have come up in oral and written evidence. The Bill’s supporters have frequently used the argument that our current medical care is limited to highlight the benefits of assisted dying, by stating that even with the best care available, not everyone can be prevented from experiencing significant suffering as their life comes to an end. However, such an understanding of the limits of medicine is not consistently applied in the Bill. The truth, as is repeatedly corroborated in the written evidence, is that in many cases we simply cannot reasonably know how long a person could survive. Witnesses have explained that predicting whether someone is inevitably terminal is often not a certainty. Even when a disease is considered advanced or at the end stage, there are variables—such as an individual’s response to a treatment, access to care, new clinical trials, medical intervention, or a person’s overall resistance —that can influence the outcome. When practising medicine, doctors often use terms like prognosis, life expectancy, or expectation, rather than definitive statements on the degree of someone’s terminal prognosis. The variables in prognosis make the amendment necessary. The term “typically” better acknowledges the limitations of the knowledge of medical practitioners. In written evidence, Dr Chris Paxton, a retired GP of 38 years, says: “No doctor can accurately predict if a terminally ill patient has six months or more to live. I have seen many patients being told they have only months to live, continuing living many years after their ‘terminal’ diagnosis.” The concept of a condition being “typically” terminal acknowledges that although a disease usually leads to death, there may be exceptions where individuals survive longer than expected, or even achieve remission. The process of assisted dying must maintain honesty and transparency with patients who are seeking assisted death. A declaration of certainty is implied by using the word “inevitably”. In her written evidence, Dr Ariel Dempsey, who is currently studying end of life care, says: “Physician prognostic estimates are variable, optimistic/pessimistic, uncertain, and more often than not, inaccurate. For example, a prognosis of 6 months is required for hospice eligibility in the U.S., yet it is not uncommon for hospice patients to live beyond six months, even without life-prolonging treatment.” For individuals seeking assisted death, the use of the word “inevitably” can lead to an over-reliance and overconfidence in the judgment of their doctors. If someone believes without question that they will inevitably die within six months, an assisted death may seem like an obvious and minimally life-limiting choice. The problem is that a claim that someone’s death is imminent and inevitable within six months simply may not be true. Not only does the use of the word “inevitable” risk embedding dishonesty in our law, but it risks doctors who agree to engage in assisted dying and end of life care becoming overburdened with the responsibility of proclaiming an individual’s prognosis. Having considered the circumstances that surround a person’s illness, a doctor can only give a prognosis that is typical and give a typical indication of their life expectancy.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 123, in clause 2, page 1, line 23, leave out “an inevitably” and insert “a typically”. This amendment changes the definition of what it is to be terminally ill from having an “inevitably” to a “typically” progressive illness, disease or medical condition that cannot be reversed by treatment.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed : 9, in clause 2, page 1, line 24, after “reversed” insert “or the progress controlled or substantially slowed”.— (Rebecca Paul.) This amendment would mean that illness, disease or medical condition etc, the progress of which can be managed or controlled by treatment are not characterised as terminal illness. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have almost finished, so I will carry on. If we give doctors the essentially impossible task of proving that death will inevitability occur in six months, there is a risk of an individual being advised to stop treatment, to accelerate them artificially into a serious or terminal state or speed it up to ensure their eligibility. As medical intervention is so key in the prognosis of a seriously ill patient, it makes no sense to me to use language that is not consistent with real-life medical experiences or reasonably within the scope of medical diagnosis.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree that we do not want people not to understand what the Bill allows them to do or not do. We spoke earlier about making the Bill simple enough for professionals to understand so that they know how to deal with particular instances, but it is not here to make life easy for professionals; it is here to ensure that anyone who is vulnerable—anyone who has six months to live, or for whatever other reason—is protected. A continuous theme of our debates and all our conversations is that we must make safeguarding as tight as possible so that people are protected. I believe it is not too much to ask to include those additional words to ensure that the wording is as tight as possible and protects the people who need our protection every single day.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for looking that up so swiftly. I still think that those additional words need to be included in the Bill. “Coercion” and “pressure” are used as a catch-all for manipulation, but the Bill does not allow people who are using it in their everyday life—doctors, clinicians, nurses and social workers—to understand that.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  To reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, I understand that the writers, promoter and sponsors of the Bill want it to be as simple as possible. The thought is that if we make it as simple as possible, there is less room for confusion and misinterpretation, but there are times when we can make things so simple that we allow far too much interpretation. Words such as those that the hon. Member for Reigate wants to be put into the Bill are really important. Manipulation is really important. Coercion and pressure are not measures of every type of controlling behaviour that happens to individuals.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to amendments 113 to 115 and 118 to 121, which would require steps to be taken to establish that a person seeking assistance has not been manipulated by another person. The amendments would require the co-ordinating doctor to ascertain whether, in their opinion, the person has been manipulated, and would account for additional ways that a person can be influenced by another person into choosing an assisted death. Pressure and coercion may leave an individual feeling that they have no choice but to take that path; however, manipulation can make the person think that they made the choice themselves. Coercion is an overt and clear means of controlling someone, whereas manipulation is a hidden, psychological and deceptive means of control.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 12 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have a question for the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. We are having a lengthy conversation about coercion and pressure, and whether those two words are a catch-all for things that can be much more subtle and nuanced. That is the point of the amendment, and it is the point that I will make when I speak to the amendment I have tabled. Clause 26 suddenly introduces new language, with the word “dishonesty”, which brings in another type of coercion and pressure. Could we rethink the wording of clause 1(2)(b), which refers to a person who “has made the decision that they wish to end their own life voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured”? The words “coerced” and “pressured” are insufficient to cover the safeguards that we are asking for. They are not a catch-all. We are asking for something much more nuanced, and for other words to be added, just as the word “dishonesty” appears in clause 26.

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

  More

  I still think that it is important to add “demonstrably”. The word should be included; I do not see that it would create any additional confusion. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said that he had tabled some amendments later on in the Bill. However, that is later on. Putting in “demonstrably” here would strengthen his proposal.