Member

Finally, I have always regarded my noble friend Lord Harper as a sensible chap, but I am afraid he rather undermined that status by his remarkable statement earlier today that he was happy to be surrounded by lawyers. Despite that, I think he is sensible; I regard that as a rare slip on his part. He raised an important point, which is this: is it sensible, therefore, to put current case law into statute or is it better to make it clear in the statute that, whatever the prevailing duty on doctors is as regards medical treatment, it also applies to this? I respectfully suggest that the latter is a better option because it allows for the development of case law in relation to the duty. But it brings us back to that central point, and I look to the Minister on this: is it the case that it is clear that doctors’ current duty to patients to explain risks and material risks applies to this? If so, what is the problem with putting that in the Bill in terms that the prevailing duty, whatever that may be, would apply here as well? I look forward to the Minister’s answer and, of course, to the response from the noble and learned Lord the promoter.