Chamber and committees

This is a genuinely fascinating session.

I would like to speak more about the role of the courts. Dr Earle, I will start with you. I will specifically address the slippery slope argument that we began discussing earlier. I want to take that to its extreme and to hear your opinion on it. Suppose that I have diabetes, that I decide to go down the assisted dying route and that I can argue in court that I am being discriminated against as I am not allowed to do so for that condition. Obviously, that is an extreme. Do you foresee a way in which we could slowly move from the position of having fairly tightly worded reasons for being able to access assisted dying to the inclusion of conditions such as diabetes, on a rights basis?

Yes—for people throughout the process, really.

Thank you.

[Interruption.] I apologise to Dr Neal, but we are really tight for time, so I will ask a question directly and perhaps you can roll the answer that you were going to give into that.

From what we have already heard, it seems that, if the bill goes through, the will of the Parliament is very much to have a tight definition. Given that, would it be appropriate for the courts to override the will of the Parliament in that way? Lynda Towers talked about a sunset clause earlier, but would a five-year sunset clause allow the Parliament to look at slippage, at changes and at court cases and ask whether that is what it wanted, or whether things have changed? Is that why we need a sunset clause?

Yes.

I declare an interest as a practising national health service general practitioner and as the chair of the medical advisory group that advised on the bill.

I am interested in what is being said about capacity. As a doctor, I judge capacity all the time. That can involve anything from giving a drug that could potentially kill somebody to a decision on the need for surgery. In the case of surgery, we have to assess whether someone can consent to the piece of work being done. Is it appropriate that a doctor’s ability to make those judgments in all other circumstances is also used in the bill?

As GPs, we spend a lot of time with our patients and we see what the family dynamic is. How can we assess coercion and ensure that there is no coercion, either positively or negatively, outside of that structure?

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a practising NHS GP. I also chair the medical advisory group on the bill.

I thank the witnesses for coming and for their evidence. I was struck by a couple of things that have been said so far. We heard from the previous panel about the potential for doctor shopping until people find somebody who will, as Colin McKay said, sign off on anything. Might a register, as you have suggested, stop that occurring?

Yes.

We talked earlier about how, when you are diagnosed with a terminal illness, you will naturally have—or you should have—a depressive reaction of some description. Other mental health issues might play into that, and you mentioned social issues such as alcohol that could play a role. You have mentioned internal coercion, but should we also consider such other matters with regard to coercion?