Meeting of the Parliament 10 March 2026 [Draft]
I would rather it be too broad than too narrow. An argument could probably be made that amendment 140 would capture me. If I were to be in the situation of seeking assisted dying, I would be happy to have a conversation with a social worker who would make sure that I had everything that I needed to make the right decision, to be confident in understanding the gravity and impact of that decision, and to understand what the other options were.
This is not about making somebody pass a test or making it more difficult for them to access assisted dying. However, if a person has a learning disability or is neurodivergent, they are, in many ways, marginalised and vulnerable to coercion and pressure. It would be better to include more people than fewer as part of an extra safeguard of having a conversation.
Amendment 140 would ensure that people have the time and space that they need, and that they have access to experts who are used to supporting people in difficult situations to have the time to think about their decisions. The amendment would not exclude people, but it would recognise that a vulnerability attaches not to those with learning disabilities but to how they are often viewed and treated. Amendment 140 would also ensure that time and care are taken to ensure that the decision reflects the person’s choice.
Amendment 141 would prevent eligibility where a request is influenced by “financial hardship”. Disability costs money—a lot of money—and, when a person is terminally ill, the costs can be overwhelming and seem impossible for them or their family to overcome. Poverty, loneliness, domestic abuse, bereavement, homelessness, breakdowns of relationships and feeling like a burden are not uncommon experiences for those who are diagnosed with a terminal illness.