Health, Social Care and Sport Committee 04 November 2025
Elena Whitham said that she is not minded to support a six-month prognosis at this stage but indicated that, as the debate goes on, she could be persuaded otherwise. I point out that the next group of amendments, on eligibility, gives her the opportunity to do just that, because it contains an amendment on a six-month prognosis. I draw members’ attention to that, because there are two ways of approaching the issue, and they are not mutually exclusive.
Daniel Johnson’s amendment 4 would change the definition of terminal illness, and there is merit in that. We can also change the qualifying criteria, which is what my amendments in the next group seek to do. For the purposes of the debate on amendment 4 in this group, I should put on record paragraph 32 of the policy memorandum, which states:
“It is not the intention that people suffering from a progressive disease/illness/condition which is not at an advanced stage but may be expected to cause their death (but which they may live with for many months/years) would be able to access assisted dying.”
That seeks to strike a balance, but that balance does not appear in the bill. Daniel Johnson’s amendment 4 seeks to strike that balance in the bill.
There is a disconnect between the policy memorandum and what is contained in the bill. I will say more when I speak to my amendments in the next group.