Dr Ben Spencer

I rise to speak to amendments 18, 30, 31, 17 and 32, which stand in my name. I will start with amendment 18. Many moral arguments on the need for the Bill have been proposed both inside and outside this place. Some of those arguments have addressed the desire for greater control at the end of life, but the vast majority have focused on the prevention of irreversible suffering. The principle of bodily autonomy—which I strongly support in the context of full decision-making capacity, with certain important caveats—is used to justify the rights that the Bill will grant. However, let us put aside the debate surrounding the Bill and focus on the text of the clauses, which is the task that we face on Report. The provisions are silent on suffering, silent on control and silent on all but a terminal illness with a prognosis of fewer than six months. If the principle is that we must prevent irreversible suffering, all those suffering irreversibly should be able to seek physician-assisted suicide. If the principle is that we should give people control—another level of expression of bodily autonomy—all adults who truly and freely consent with full decision-making capacity should be able to seek physician-assisted suicide. If those principles are circumscribed to an arbitrary definition of “terminal illness”, the inexorable conclusion must be that those patients’ suffering or autonomy are more important than those of others, or that their lives have less value. We have seen that position subtly imported into this debate. When requesting an assisted death is not framed as suicide because some perceive it as understandable, the underlying argument is, “If you’re terminally ill, of course you want to die—that’s understandable.” We must ensure that we do not, by accident or otherwise, enshrine in our statute book value judgments on the worth of the lives of the terminally ill or on the protections that they should enjoy like everyone else. I tabled amendment 18 to expand the scope of the Bill as much as I can to reduce the discrimination inherent within it. The maximum I could do was to remove the six-month restriction, but I wish the amendment could go further. I know that some Members will wince at this provision, but I ask them to ask themselves what the principles and values in the Bill are, how they are being applied and whether they are being applied equally. I believe that the Bill as drafted is incoherent and discriminatory. My amendment would introduce some moral clarity to the Bill. If we do not do so, the courts will. I turn to amendments 30 and 31. If we are to rely on the principle of autonomy to authorise physician-assisted suicide for terminal illness, the expressed choice must be true and free. Autonomy needs help, though. A true and free choice needs to be informed; a true and free choice cannot be made under coercion; a true and free choice requires decision-making capacity. I believe that, if we are to rely on the principle of autonomy for the most grave of decisions, there needs to actually be a choice. In the absence of relevant and available palliative care options, where is the choice? How can we rely on autonomy in the absence of choice? The prospect of people choosing physician-assisted suicide not because it meets their needs, but because their needs are unmet owing to a failure in the provision of palliative care, is a moral outrage. My amendments 30 and 31 would ensure that that does not happen.