Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)

Of course I will consider it. Amendment 88, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is an amendment to Clause 2(2), which will go, in the light of Amendment 87. Amendment 89 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, but was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who is, sadly, not in his place. It would make ineligible those who withdraw “medication, hydration, or life-sustaining devices”. Hydration is covered already by Amendment 87, which is coming. I am not in favour of the changes in relation to withdrawing medication or life-sustaining devices because, as I said on the first group, it is generally for the patient to decide what treatment to have. If, for example, they do not wish to have a difficult further round of chemotherapy, they should be allowed to make that choice. If, for example, they have MND, and they wish to be taken off the respirator, they should be allowed to do so as well. Unfortunately, I therefore do not support those amendments. Amendment 91, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, which would insert “where the refusal of nutrition is a result of mental illness”, is now covered by Amendment 87. Amendment 92 would insert: “A person who would not otherwise meet the requirements of subsection (1)”— that is, the definition of terminal illness— “shall not be considered to meet those requirements solely as a result of standard medical treatment being refused or withheld”. I dealt with that in a previous group. If it is a case of type 1 diabetes or dialysis then you do not make yourself eligible by refusing that. I do not think that any further change is necessary. Amendment 101, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, would insert: “For the avoidance of doubt, the physical effects of a mental disorder, such as an eating disorder, would not alone make a person eligible to meet the conditions in subsection (1)(a) and (1)(b)”. That is what provoked the change in Amendment 87. I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, is the person responsible for the change, and that she has supported our amendments. Finally, Amendment 103, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, addressed those who would refuse treatment as a result of a mental illness, and then that refusal leads them to be eligible. I am not in favour of the amendment for two reasons. If you have refused treatment because of a mental illness, you would not have had capacity to refuse treatment in the first place. Suppose that, as a result of a mental illness, you ended up not getting treatment for something and now, with complete capacity, your cancer is much worse than it would otherwise have been. Should you be denied an assisted death if it is otherwise available? In my view, you should not.