Juliet Campbell MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that explanation. I move on to amendment 410, which would remove the ability of the court to hear from and question any person other than the person who made the application or the declaration for an assisted death and the assessing doctors. I have strong reservations about using a proxy or giving another person the right to speak on behalf of an individual who wishes to have an assisted death, and I question the scope of those people who could be the proxy to speak on behalf of a person requesting an assisted death. Who exactly would those people be? One of the arguments we have consistently debated in this Committee is around coercion and patient autonomy. When multiple third parties such as family members or caregivers are allowed to testify, there is an increased risk that an individual might influence the court’s decision in a way that is not aligned to the true wishes of the applicant. In some cases we have talked about pressure from family members or loved ones, for whatever reason—whether their vested interest is financial or something else—to have the applicant hasten their death or have an assisted death. I would not want that kind of pressure to be put on the person and I do not believe any third party should be allowed to speak on their behalf or to be a proxy. By limiting the scope of the testimony to the applicant and assessing doctors only, the amendment helps to safeguard against such manipulative tactics and ensures that the court focuses solely on the applicant’s own will and the medical assessment of their eligibility, removing the potential for family dynamics or any other outside influence to interfere with the judicial review. It offers a necessary refinement to the Bill for assisted deaths, a request that is both efficient and respectful of the autonomy of all people involved. By limiting the court testimony to the applicant and assessing doctor, the amendment addresses several of the concerns I have spoken about.

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

  More

  I rise to speak to amendments 407 and 410. Amendment 407 would leave out the word “may” and insert the word “must”, and would require the High Court to hear from and question all persons who made the application for a declaration. It is a probing amendment, which aims to question the guidelines for the judge to question and hear from some people and not all people. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I seek clarity on what the criteria would be for the judge to question some people and not others.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q My question is for Professor Shakespeare and Dr Griffiths. Clause 4 of the Bill offers the opportunity for clinicians to instigate the discussion on assisted dying. Could you both tell me your view on that, please? Professor Shakespeare: It is natural and right that somebody should discuss their wishes with a doctor who supports and treats them. I do not think there is a problem there. Marie’s suggestion that there should be a wider body to look at this is very relevant. At the moment, doctors refer women for abortions, and that does not stop them also supporting pregnant women. I do not think that women would distrust their doctor because they are sometimes involved, at some point, with an abortion decision. That is quite obvious. As my colleague Yogi Amin said, the Bill covers what the terminal illness is, and why we should support people to voluntarily exercise their choices. Lots of doctors will not be in favour of this, but they will be clinically professional and they will discuss with the person. I do not have a concern about that. You are more likely to be kept alive against your will than you are to end your life under this Act. Dr Griffiths: My first point is that, for me, the Bill raises concerns because it relies on doctors’ interpretations of prognosis. If a doctor assumes that you have six months left to live, and is therefore going to start having a conversation with you about the possibility of assisted suicide, that draws into question how we allow assumptions to be made about whether an individual has six months left to live. That is particularly the case given that we have evidence that shows that, with certain interventions or mishaps surrounding prognosis, individuals can live for months, years and decades longer. The idea of bringing in the conversation from the point of view of the medical practitioner could, arguably, accelerate one’s death—if you take into account that their idea of prognosis might be flawed. It also, I think, raises problems, because we know that many individuals with health conditions and impairments—irrespective of whether we want to create this false line between disabled people and people with terminal illness—do not have access to advocacy or representation in these kinds of processes. Having a conversation where there is extreme credibility and validity that rests on the medical practitioner could exacerbate issues around coercion. We could take a moment of reflection. When we were going through the pandemic, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman highlighted how medical practitioners could think about “do not attempt resuscitation” orders and how they were utilised in the disabled people’s community. That has parallels with the issue we have here, where medical practitioners will be making assumptions about whether conversations or applications should be made. Yogi Amin: Can I just raise one point on representation? I point Members to paragraph 10 in my written submission, which tries to make the important point that if we are involving courts, individuals need access to justice. They need access to advice, and that means legal aid. I point in that paragraph to the provision of non-means-tested legal aid, just like in the case of parents of children and the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Those current rules are in place for parents, and a similar arrangement could be put in place for individuals who are brought before the court in this matter.