Member

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thornton, has argued for a patient-centred, safe system. I put to him now: will he accept that a system which institutionalises speed, creates a dedicated navigator only for assisted death and allows remote assessments cannot credibly claim to be the highest standard of patient protection? If he truly believes in patient choice, will he support amendments that restore time for reflection, parity of support for palliative options and a presumption of face-to-face assessment so that choice is informed, free and real, not the product of a fast-track service designed to deliver one outcome? This is not about denying choice. It is about ensuring that the choice is genuine. I support the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Mackinlay of Richborough and Lord Harper.