Health, Social Care and Sport Committee 04 November 2025
I do not happen to agree with that. As I go through and respond to the amendments, the rationale for that might become clearer.
Amendments 143 and 144 offer alternative options. The former suggests a prognosis period of three months. As well as my general concerns about setting a prognosis period, I add that there are no examples from around the world of a three-month prognosis timeframe. Not only would it risk eligible adults being unable to access the choice in time, it would risk—as I think Daniel Johnson rightly pointed out—placing pressure on them to make a hurried decision. I know that Mr Balfour would not wish for that to happen.
A six-month period, as suggested by amendment 144, is certainly more realistic, albeit that I offer the same general reservations about setting a timescale for prognosis. Amendment 144 also proposes adding, for the avoidance of doubt, that a person should not be considered terminally ill if their
“condition can be controlled or substantially slowed down by medical intervention”.
I remind colleagues—this perhaps addresses some of what Pam Duncan-Glancy was saying—that the definition that is set out in the bill states that
“a person is terminally ill if they have an advanced and progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unable to recover and that can reasonably be expected to cause their premature death.”
I remain of the view that the definition of terminal illness as set out in the bill is appropriate and captures the appropriate cohort of people.