Meeting of the Parliament 11 March 2026 [Draft]
So far in stage 3, there has been much discussion about the safeguards that might be provided for in the bill, but in reality that boils down to the judgment of two doctors.
That might be the right way to proceed, but we need to be clear that the opinion of the co-ordinating medical practitioner and the independent medical practitioner would be the safeguard. Yes, that would be subject to guidance, training and consultation with other professionals, as set out in other amendments, but, ultimately, eligibility would be their decision. We need to think carefully about how the judgment is arrived at and in what context, and we must ensure that it is robust, evidenced and accountable. Most critically, what happens if the doctors’ opinions are that the person is not eligible for assisted dying? Those questions are the subjects of my amendments in the group.
Amendment 153 would ensure that the medical practitioner makes the assessment in person and that they meet the person on “more than one occasion” before they do so. At stage 2, I lodged a probing amendment that sought to specify how long the doctor had known the patient, because I sought to establish that a good doctor-patient relationship is needed in order to arrive at an opinion. As a bare minimum, two in-person consultations should be needed in order to arrive at that judgment.