Health, Social Care and Sport Committee 04 November 2025
I am going to make a little more progress, Ms Duncan-Glancy.
Adding terms such as “substantially slowed down” is likely only to add to confusion.
Although I am sympathetic to the provision in amendment 144 that states that,
“For the avoidance of doubt, a person is not terminally ill if ... their illness is a consequence of voluntarily stopping eating and drinking”,
I believe that that is already covered in the existing definition. Indeed, it was not raised with the committee at stage 1.
Daniel Johnson’s amendment 4 similarly seeks to define terminal illness by reference to a six-month time period. I know from my discussions with him that he was keen to open up a debate on that, and I think that he has been successful in doing that.
As I have said, other jurisdictions generally operate with prognosis periods of six months, albeit that there are often slightly longer prognosis periods for neurological conditions. It is therefore entirely right that we are having this discussion. I have set out my concerns about how that might work in practice, but I am interested to hear the debate on it and to see where Parliament eventually lands.
I am happy to work with colleagues ahead of stage 3 on workable amendments that might deliver the intention, but it was important to put on record why I opted for the approach in the bill. I think that it is consistent with decisions that Parliament has taken previously on similar issues. I will listen to what colleagues have to say and, as I said, I am open to having further discussions about this.