Meeting of the Parliament 11 March 2026 [Draft]
I agree with that. Sometimes, the nature and intensity of the diagnosis produce a very good-quality relationship, which is why, as I reflected at stage 2, the length of time is not a good proxy for that, because sometimes a short but intense doctor-patient relationship is much more valuable than a long but cursory one.
Turning to my amendment 9, I reflected on some of the discussion at stage 2 between Liam McArthur and Bob Doris. Although there is much merit in Bob Doris’s amendment 37, which would introduce the requirement for a report, I worry that it might be burdensome, especially given the sensitive timing that is involved in the process. However, at the very least, a statement is required, which is what amendments 9, 183 and 183A would address. The particular point is that it must be recorded when a medical practitioner does not agree that the assisted dying process should proceed. Amendment 9 would ensure that a statement on the assessment is recorded and provided to the patient, which is important because, if the original decision is subsequently reversed, it must be referred to and the subsequent medical practitioner must explain why they have arrived at a different opinion. Given the nature and structure of the drafting, that is provided for in amendment 183A.
It is important that the bill provides for what should happen not just if the decision was to proceed with the process but if the decision was not to proceed with it. My amendments are modelled on the New Zealand legislation, which clearly specifies what should happen if the co-ordinating medical practitioner decides that the person is not eligible or that the process should not proceed.
Amendment 183 specifies that, in addition to the form that is set out in schedule 2, further details would need to be given in the form of an additional statement, which would need to be recorded. That statement would need to set out the nature of the relationship between the patient and the doctor, the doctor’s understanding of the nature of the patient’s condition, the co-ordinating medical practitioner’s understanding of the patient’s capacity and the steps that had been undertaken to assess that. It is important to evidence and record such things, so that we have clarity, robust evidence and accountable decision making on what would, ultimately, be an incredibly important decision by both the patient and the doctor.