Meeting of the Parliament 10 March 2026 [Draft]
I would simply draw on the legislation in the two jurisdictions that I mentioned for comparison, both of which have similar or comparable forms of wording. In addition, the fundamental definitions of “terminal illness” and “progressive” in the bill would similarly require legal interpretation. I acknowledge that, in many ways, I would prefer that the definitions had been looked at further—indeed, much of the bill could have done with a great deal more deliberation and scrutiny.
To go back to the amendments that I have lodged, amendment 136 would introduce the concept of intolerable suffering. I stress that that would be in addition to the two conditions already in the bill with regard to having a terminal illness that is progressive.
Amendment 1 would provide the expanded definitions, because I believe that clarification is needed, not only of the meaning of intolerable suffering, but of what the terms “terminal” and “progressive” mean. Without clarifying the definitions, we would simply be relying on two lines of legislation. I note that that is considerably less than in most of the pieces of legislation in international jurisdictions that are available for comparison, if members choose to look at them.
I move amendment 136.