Meeting of the Parliament 12 March 2026 [Draft]
I apologise to Stephanie Callaghan that I cannot take her intervention at this time. I hope that she will get an opportunity to put the point that she wishes to make on the record.
I was making the point that raising assisted dying cannot be a neutral act. At least, if we want it to be a neutral act, we need serious, significant guidance and regulation in this area, and I do not think that that is possible as things stand.
This is the picture that I would paint. Someone goes to their doctor and says, “Doctor, I’ve had lots of treatments for my cancer. They’ve been successful for a while, but I’m now in pain on a daily basis. You say there’s no new breakthrough drug that I can use for it. I don’t feel that I’ve got any quality of life. Is there anything else you can do for me?” The doctor has done a palliative pathway, a pharmaceutical review and all the things that we might expect the doctor to do. “Doctor,” the patient says, “is there anything else that you can do for me?” I am not sure how I feel, in those circumstances, about how unethical it would be to say, “No, there’s nothing I can do for you, but I should make you aware of this other thing called assisted dying.”
I struggle with that. I see Brian Whittle shaking his head, but I struggle with that. I am conflicted in relation to that, which is the point that I am making to Brian Whittle. I have just put on record a completely artificial conversation that suits my interests within a debate. Every conversation between a doctor and patient will be different every day of the week. I do not know how we train the medical profession to get that balance right. I am conflicted on that, and I underline the fact that I do not think that raising the option of assisted dying is a neutral act, but it goes back to the light and shade comment that I wanted to make earlier with regard to how we do or do not provide the information.