Member

Finally, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Goudie. Amendment 202 would ensure that prohibition applies not merely to raising assisted dying but to discussing it. Without that clarification, the boundary risks becoming semantic rather than substantive. Amendment 208 would make it clear that the protection applies even if a child initiates the conversation—vulnerability does not disappear simply because the young person speaks first. Amendment 209 recognises that influence comes not only from clinicians; adults in positions of authority—guardians, carers and educators—all carry significant weight, and safeguarding must be consistent across all those parties. If we accept that minors are vulnerable to influence, why confine the prohibition to clinicians alone?