Meeting of the Parliament 10 March 2026 [Draft]
I wonder whether Daniel Johnson can tell us a little bit more about his reasoning for choosing the following form of words in amendment 1:
“that treatment that can relieve or improve this condition … is no longer providing relief or improvement”.
It seems to me that that implies that a treatment that could theoretically provide even the most marginal, barely registrable improvement would rule out the individual being able to make their own choice. Surely it is for the individual to decide whether a treatment provides sufficient improvement for them to change their mind.