Amendments proposed to the Medical Treatment (prevention of Euthanasia) Bill, As Amended - continued House of Commons

back to previous text

Defence of previous declaration by patient

   

Mr Neil Gerrard
Mr Joe Ashton

NC19

To move the following Clause:—

    'It shall be a defence to a prosecution under this Act if the patient, whilst of sound mind and body had previously stated in writing witnessed by not less than two other persons excluding the defendant that he did not wish treatment to be continued or instituted in the circumstances set out in section 1.'.


Concealing or destroying advance refusal of treatment

   

Dr Alan Whitehead
Mr David Rendel
Mr Joe Ashton

NC20

To move the following Clause:—

    '.—(1) It is an offence for a person with intent to deceive, to conceal or destroy a written advance refusal of treatment made by another person.

    (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

      (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

      (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.'.


Concealing or destroying advance refusal of treatment (No. 2)

   

Mr John Healey

NC21

To move the following Clause:—

    '.—(1) It is an offence for a person with intent to deceive, to conceal or destroy a written advance refusal of treatment made by another person.

    (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years on indictment or six months on summary conviction.'.


Wishes of nominated representatives

   

Mr Kevin Barron
Mr David Rendel
Mr Joe Ashton

NC22

To move the following Clause:—

    '.—It shall be a defence to a prosecution under this Act for the defendant to show he acted in accordance with the wishes of two adults of full legal capacity not responsible for the clinical care of the patient nominated in writing by that patient when of full legal capacity to take decisions on his behalf as to his future treatment.'.


Guidance given by the High Court

   

Mr Joe Ashton

NC23

To move the following Clause:—

    '.—It shall be a defence to a prosecution under this Act if the defendant can show he was acting in accordance with guidance given by the High Court.'.


Guidance of professional body

   

Dr Howard Stoate
Mr David Rendel

NC24

To move the following Clause:—

    '.—It shall be a defence to a prosecution under this Act if the defendant can show he was acting in accordance with the guidance issued by his professional body at the time of the acts or omissions complained of.'.


Code of practice

   

Dr Alan Whitehead
Mr David Rendel

NC25

To move the following Clause:—

    '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare and from time to time revise a code or codes of practice for the guidance of persons responsible for the care of a patient;

      with respect to the matters concerned with section 1 of this Act as he thinks fit.

    (2) Before preparing a code under this section or revising such a code the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he thinks appropriate and may delegate the preparation of the whole or any part of any code so far as he considers expedient.

    (3) The Secretary of State shall publish any code under this section as for the time being in force and lay copies of it before Parliament.

    (4) It shall be the duty of any person responsible for the care of a patient to have regard to any relevant code in force under this section if he is acting in a professional capacity or for remuneration.

    (5) The provisions of any code in force under this section shall be admissible in evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings and may be taken into account by the court if it considers them relevant in determining any question arising in the proceedings.'.


Exceptions

   

Mr Joe Ashton

NC26

To move the following Clause:—

    '—(1) It shall be lawful, if one of the requirements specified in subsection (2) below is satisfied, to discontinue artificial nutrition or hydration for a person who is unconscious, has no activity in his cerebral cortex and has no prospect of recovery from his condition.

    (2) The requirements referred to above are—

      (a) the approval of the court;

      (b) the consent given within the scope of his authority by the donee of a continuing power of attorney granted by the person concerned or by a manager appointed for him by the court;

      (c) if an order made by the Secretary of State so provides either generally or in cases of a specified description, a certificate in writing by a registered medical practitioner appointed by him for the purposes of this section (not being the one who is to take the proposed action) that it is appropriate for that action to be taken.

    (3) Section 3 above shall not apply to a decision made for the purposes of this section by the court, the donee of a powew, a manager or the practitioner referred to in subsection (2)(c) above but in making the decision regard is to be had to the matters mentioned in subsection (2) of that section.

    (4) The Secretary of State may by an order applying either generally or in cases of a specified description authorise the carrying out, subject to one of the requirements specified in subsection (2) above being satisfied, of any medical or surgical procedure in relation to a person without capacity to consent which, though not carried out for his benefit, will in the opinion of the Secretary of State not cause him significant harm and be of significant benefit to others.

    (5) Subsection (4) above does not apply to any procedure carried out for the purposes of research and nothing shall be done by virtue of an order under that subsection if the person concerned objects or it would be contrary to an advance refusal of treatment by that person.

    (6) In relation to any procedure to which an order under subsection (4) above applies the requirement in subsection (2)(c) above shall have effect as if it required the certificate to state also that the person concerned is without capacity to consent.

    (7) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as appear to him to represent persons affected by mental disability and shall also consult the Official Solicitor.

    (8) The power to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.


Misdiagnosis

   

Mr Andrew Dismore
Mr David Rendel

NC27

To move the following Clause:—

      '.—It shall be a defence to a prosecution under the Act if the defendant can show his acts or omissions allegedly in breach of section 1 were carried out as a consequence of a bona fide clinical misdiagnosis.'.


Research programmes

   

Mr Andrew Miller

NC28

To move the following Clause:—

      '.—No prosecution will take place under this Act where medical treatment is administered as part of a properly authorised research programme.'.


Unlawful acts

   

Mr Andrew Dismore
Mr David Rendel

NC29

To move the following Clause:—

      '.—In the event of the patient's condition being the result of the unlawful act of another any breach of section 1 of this Act shall not relieve the person responsible for that unlawful act of the responsibility in law for its full consequences including the death of the patient.'.


Defence relating to recommendations of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence

   

Dr Alan Whitehead
Mr David Rendel

NC30

To move the following Clause:—

    '.—It shall be a defence to proceedings under section 1 of this Act to show that to have continued the treatment withheld or withdrawn would have been contrary to recommendations of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence.'.


Defence relating to advice from the Commission for Health Improvement

   

Mr John Healey
Mr David Rendel

NC31

To move the following Clause:—

    '.—It shall be a defence to proceedings under section 1 of this Act to show that to have continued the treatment withheld or withdrawn would have been contrary to advice issued by the Commission for Health Improvement.'.


Defence relating to mainstream medical practice

   

Dr Howard Stoate

NC32

To move the following Clause:—

    '.—It shall be a defence to proceedings under section 1 of this Act to show that to have continued the treatment withheld or withdrawn would have been contrary to mainstream medical practice.'.


Offence of causing death of a patient

   

Dr Evan Harris
Dr Jenny Tonge
Dr Peter Brand
Mr David Rendel

NC33

To move the following Clause:—

    '.—Any person responsible for the care of a patient who commits any act or omission with the purpose of causing the death of a patient is guilty of an offence unless—

      (a) treatment is withheld on the grounds that providing treatment would be excessively burdensome to the patient; or

      (b) the patient is suffering from profound irreversible brain damage and the patient's best interests require that treatment no longer be provided; or

      (c) provision of treatment would be contrary to the informed decision of a competent patient; or

      (d) providing treatment would be contrary to specific instructions set out in a valid advance directive made by the patient when competent and in anticipation of his or her current circumstances; or

      (e) providing treatment would be contrary to the informed decision of any person lawfully entitled to make healthcare decisions on behalf of an incompetent patient; or

      (f) a declaration has been obtained from the court to the effect that withdrawing or withholding treatment would be in the best interests of the patient and consequently would not be unlawful.'.

 
previous section contents continue
 
House of Commons home page Houses of Parliament home page House of Lords home page Search page Enquiries index

©Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 12 Apr 2000