TV doctor Hilary Jones says he would help terminally ill to die if law changed
The GP, often seen on ITV's Good Morning Britain and the Lorraine show, said medicine will go 'back to the Dark Ages' if proposed legislation being considered at Westminster is voted down.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will return to the House of Commons for debate on Friday, with MPs expected to consider further amendments.
In its current form the Bill, which applies only to England and Wales, would mean terminally ill adults with only six months left to live could apply for assistance to end their lives, with approval needed from two doctors and the expert panel.
Last month, MPs approved a change in the Bill to ensure no medics would be obliged to take part in assisted dying.
Doctors already had an opt-out but the new clause extends that to anyone, including pharmacists and social care workers.
Dr Jones, in an interview with the PA news agency, said medics are 'looking over their shoulders because of the legal repercussions of the law' as it stands.
Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years.
MPs in the Commons during a previous debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA)
Asked about the significance if the law does change, Dr Jones told PA: 'It will relieve healthcare professionals who deal with terminal illness.
'There are wonderful people who are caring and compassionate, who just live in fear of their actions being misinterpreted, of being accused of wrongdoing, and because of that fear, people at the end of life are often undertreated.
'People are looking over their shoulder because of the medications they're using or the doses they're using, it means that patients aren't getting the best palliative care that they could have.
'And I think the Bill, if it passes, will alleviate a great deal of that, and put people's minds at rest that they're not going to suffer unnecessarily at the end of life.'
Ahead of last month's Commons debate on the Bill, two royal medical colleges raised concerns over the proposed legislation.
The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) said it believes there are 'concerning deficiencies', while the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) said it has 'serious concerns' and cannot support the Bill.
Dr Jones, who has been practising medicine for more than 45 years and spent time working on cancer wards during his career, said he has 'always supported it (assisted dying)'.
He added: 'I've always felt it is the most humane, kind and compassionate thing that relatives and doctors can provide, knowing that that person's wishes are respected and known, that there is full mental capacity and that they're surrounded by love.
'And for me, it's always been very clear.'
Asked if, were the law to change, he would be content to help someone who had chosen assisted dying at the end of their life, he said: 'Absolutely, if I know the patient, I know what their wishes are, I see them suffering, and there's nothing more I can do to help their suffering then, absolutely, I would hold their hand and help them achieve what they want to achieve.'
Some of the Bill's opponents have urged MPs to focus on improving end-of-life care rather than legislating for assisted dying.
But Dr Jones said his mother, who was a nurse and died 'suffering unnecessarily' despite the 'best possible palliative care' would be 'proud of me speaking on this subject now, in the way I am'.
He told of his respect for people's 'religious beliefs, cultural beliefs and personal feelings' in being opposed to assisted dying but insisted it should be an area of choice.
He said: 'The bottom line is that I think it's the patient's individual choice. I think we should respect the right of the individual to choose what they want.
'This is not a mandatory thing. This is not being imposed on anybody.
'And I think people should have the individual right to make a decision about how they end their life if they've got a terminal illness where there's no prospect of cure and they're suffering and they fear an undignified death.'
Asked about the prospect of the Bill being voted down by MPs, Dr Jones said: 'We would be back to square one, back to the Dark Ages, in my opinion, medically, and that would be a shame.
'I don't think we would be advancing medicine if the Bill is not passed.'
Our Duty Of Care, a group of healthcare professionals campaigning against a change in the law, said the question must be whether someone is making a 'true choice' if they apply for assisted dying.
Dr Gillian Wright, a spokesperson for the group, said: 'If someone has not had access to palliative care, psychological support or social care, then are they making a true choice?'
'At a time when the NHS is on its knees, when palliative are social care are struggling and our amazing hospices are having to close beds and cut services because of lack of money, as someone who has cared for people at the end of life, I would urge MPs to vote against this Bill but instead invest in excellent specialist palliative care, social care and psychological support.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
3 hours ago
- Scotsman
'Reform is urgent and critical' An open letter from medics on the future of healthcare in Scotland
PA Leading Scottish health professionals call for 'reimagining' of healthcare Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... We are a diverse group of committed senior figures, with wide-ranging experience of the delivery of health care and social care in Scotland, who share a belief that the health of our people is central to the success of our nation, and that we need to re-imagine how health is created in Scotland. The current situation We recognise that many people are well served by the NHS in Scotland, and that thousands of dedicated and hard-working people ensure that compassionate and effective, sometimes life-saving, care is provided on a day-to-day basis. And yet, as has also been acknowledged, the current system of delivering health care and social care in Scotland is unsustainable, often stretched beyond capacity, overly complicated, difficult to navigate, often inefficient and is perceived as not always meeting the needs of people living in Scotland. The health of the nation is deteriorating and health inequalities are widening. Reform is urgent and critical. A vision Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad We understand that simply spending more money will not solve all of the problems we face. But a vision at the centre - of a whole ecosystem of health, a service of health care and social care for all and a culture that promotes equality and fairness and honours all who work in health and care and for a healthier nation – can make Scotland unique. And we recognise that reform of the NHS is only part of the picture and that wider issues require to be addressed, including the vital role of the third sector and local government. Health care is not the sole responsibility of the NHS. We need to look beyond the NHS to the broader determinants of health and prioritise prevention and health creation as a national imperative, while recognising the role of social care in its own right. The need for the long view We appreciate the enormous challenge that this presents to decision-makers, and the value therefore of safe and meaningful deliberation. We also recognise that it is not helpful to view the future health of the country and the problems currently facing our health care and social care systems as the responsibility of any one political party, government or individual minister. In reality, the challenges to health and the crises in our NHS are caused by a combination of complex and inter-related factors which have arisen over many years, for which there are no quick or simple solutions. Transformation is beyond the capacity of any one political party, government or group of stakeholders, who should not be expected to carry that burden alone. While there are urgent short-term needs requiring immediate attention and action, longer term change is essential and will make the biggest difference. We feel that the necessary consideration of what this will entail cannot be dependent on the needs of short-term party politics or conditioned by the next parliamentary election. We need a longer-term vision, shared by us all as a common responsibility, with a whole of Scotland commitment. A call for cross-party and cross-sectoral working Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad We believe that there is potential for cross-party and cross-sectoral acceptance of common ground on certain issues, including what is and is not working well, which could then be discussed with the general public, openly and candidly, in the quest for effective, fair and sustainable long-term solutions. There are no easy answers, hard choices will need to be faced, and delivering the necessary reforms will take more than one electoral cycle. We believe that, to achieve the necessary longer-term change, we will need politicians to be willing to work across parties and with all stakeholders, not least to ensure the consistent delivery of that change over several political cycles. We see evidence of such an approach in other countries, such as Denmark and Australia. A commitment to work together We note that politicians and civic leaders in Scotland recently came together to discuss other important matters, expressing a commitment to working together, and have recognised that solutions will be manifold and complex, requiring a collective response, with a shared responsibility to map a way forward for Scotland. We believe that the current situation in health, health care and social care requires a similar collective approach. We are committed to work together to support a Scotland-wide approach to reform of health, health care and social care. To help achieve this, we wish to encourage making space for fresh thinking and candid conversations about change with politicians and other stake-holders, conducted through respectful private, informal, Chatham House Rule exploration of the key issues, development of options and identification of possible ways forward. We take as our model the Edinburgh Conversations of the 1980s which did so much to ease tensions during the Cold War. What worked then could work again now in our approach to the nation's health. A shared mission to improve Scotland's health Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In short, ours is a plea for a shared mission, for the humility and courage to recognise that we require new ways of discussing, delivering and improving the nation's health and creating sustainable health care and social care systems for the future. Dr David Caesar, Emergency physician andAssociate Medical Director for Medicine Dr Sarah Doyle, Chief Executive and Nurse Director, Queen's Nursing Institute Scotland Professor Andrew Elder, President, Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Professor Liz Grant, Assistant Principal (Global Health) & Director of the Global Health Academy, University of Edinburgh Jane-Claire Judson, Chief Executive, Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland Elizabeth Kelly, Chair, Improving Wellbeing and Working Cultures Strategic Board Dr Tamasin Knight, Consultant in Public Health Medicine Dr Donald Macaskill, Chief Executive, Scottish Care Dr Alastair MacGilchrist, Chair, Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems (SHAAP) Tejesh Mistry, Chief Executive, Voluntary Health Scotland Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Rami Okasha, Chief Executive, Children's Hospices Across Scotland (CHAS) Professor Stephen Turner, former chair, Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties in Scotland
South Wales Argus
12 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Senior doctor's failures in teenager's care ‘amounted to gross negligence'
Professor Richard Thompson did not refer Martha Mills, 13, to intensive care despite her displaying several high-risk indicators of sepsis and the on-call consultant also chose not to return to London's King's College Hospital to assess her in person. Martha had been an inpatient on the hospital's Rays of Sunshine Ward at King's College Hospital after she suffered a serious injury to her pancreas when she slipped while riding a bike on a family holiday in Wales in July 2021. Weeks later, she experienced a fever, increased heart rate and had a catheter inserted into her vein, which was 'ultimately considered' to be a likely source of the infection that led to her death from sepsis, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) hearing was told. More spikes in her temperature followed, before the consultant hepatologist saw Martha on his morning ward round on Sunday August 29 at the hospital, one of three locations in the UK which specialise in the treatment of paediatric pancreatic injuries. The on-call consultant left the hospital at 3pm, but was phoned at home two hours later by a trainee doctor, who gave an update on Martha's condition. Medical records showed she had deteriorated over the course of the afternoon, and into the early evening, with a drop in her blood pressure, the appearance of a new rash and increases in heart rate, respiratory rate and body temperature. Tribunal chairman Robin Ince noted that by 5pm there were 'several high-risk indicators' as set out in the Nice guidelines relating to sepsis. The duty registrar called Prof Thompson again at 8.30pm because of ongoing concerns over Martha's fever, but she was kept on the ward despite the continued presence of moderate to high-risk indicators and the absence of meaningful clinical improvement, said the tribunal. Following the death of their daughter Martha, Merope Mills and Paul Laity campaigned for the creation of Martha's Rule, allowing patients, families and carers the chance to easily request a second opinion from a senior doctor in the same hospital (Mills/Laity family photograph/PA) On Monday, the tribunal concluded that Prof Thompson's conduct fell so far short of the standards reasonably expected of a doctor so as to amount to misconduct. Mr Ince said: 'The tribunal was of the view that Professor Thompson's omissions were 'particularly grave' and essentially amounted to gross negligence about the serious risk of harm to patients (albeit only on this one occasion) and were sufficiently serious in any event such as to amount to misconduct.' Martha collapsed on August 30 and was moved to intensive care, before she was transferred to London's Great Ormond Street Hospital, where she died in the early hours of August 31. At a 2022 inquest into her death, a coroner ruled that Martha would most likely have survived if doctors had identified the warning signs and transferred her to intensive care earlier. Martha's mother, Merope Mills, an editor at The Guardian, said she and her husband, Paul Laity, raised concerns about Martha's deteriorating health a number of times but these were not acted on. The couple later successfully campaigned for Martha's Rule to give patients, families and carers the chance to easily request a second opinion from a senior doctor in the same hospital in the event of a suspected deterioration or serious concern. The tribunal will now consider what sanction, if any, to impose on Prof Thompson's registration. The MPTS hearing, sitting in Manchester, continues on Tuesday.
Western Telegraph
13 hours ago
- Western Telegraph
Senior doctor's failures in teenager's care ‘amounted to gross negligence'
Professor Richard Thompson did not refer Martha Mills, 13, to intensive care despite her displaying several high-risk indicators of sepsis and the on-call consultant also chose not to return to London's King's College Hospital to assess her in person. Martha had been an inpatient on the hospital's Rays of Sunshine Ward at King's College Hospital after she suffered a serious injury to her pancreas when she slipped while riding a bike on a family holiday in Wales in July 2021. Weeks later, she experienced a fever, increased heart rate and had a catheter inserted into her vein, which was 'ultimately considered' to be a likely source of the infection that led to her death from sepsis, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) hearing was told. More spikes in her temperature followed, before the consultant hepatologist saw Martha on his morning ward round on Sunday August 29 at the hospital, one of three locations in the UK which specialise in the treatment of paediatric pancreatic injuries. The on-call consultant left the hospital at 3pm, but was phoned at home two hours later by a trainee doctor, who gave an update on Martha's condition. Medical records showed she had deteriorated over the course of the afternoon, and into the early evening, with a drop in her blood pressure, the appearance of a new rash and increases in heart rate, respiratory rate and body temperature. Tribunal chairman Robin Ince noted that by 5pm there were 'several high-risk indicators' as set out in the Nice guidelines relating to sepsis. The duty registrar called Prof Thompson again at 8.30pm because of ongoing concerns over Martha's fever, but she was kept on the ward despite the continued presence of moderate to high-risk indicators and the absence of meaningful clinical improvement, said the tribunal. Following the death of their daughter Martha, Merope Mills and Paul Laity campaigned for the creation of Martha's Rule, allowing patients, families and carers the chance to easily request a second opinion from a senior doctor in the same hospital (Mills/Laity family photograph/PA) On Monday, the tribunal concluded that Prof Thompson's conduct fell so far short of the standards reasonably expected of a doctor so as to amount to misconduct. Mr Ince said: 'The tribunal was of the view that Professor Thompson's omissions were 'particularly grave' and essentially amounted to gross negligence about the serious risk of harm to patients (albeit only on this one occasion) and were sufficiently serious in any event such as to amount to misconduct.' Martha collapsed on August 30 and was moved to intensive care, before she was transferred to London's Great Ormond Street Hospital, where she died in the early hours of August 31. At a 2022 inquest into her death, a coroner ruled that Martha would most likely have survived if doctors had identified the warning signs and transferred her to intensive care earlier. Martha's mother, Merope Mills, an editor at The Guardian, said she and her husband, Paul Laity, raised concerns about Martha's deteriorating health a number of times but these were not acted on. The couple later successfully campaigned for Martha's Rule to give patients, families and carers the chance to easily request a second opinion from a senior doctor in the same hospital in the event of a suspected deterioration or serious concern. The tribunal will now consider what sanction, if any, to impose on Prof Thompson's registration. The MPTS hearing, sitting in Manchester, continues on Tuesday.
