Pharmacists are not “adequately protected” in the assisted dying bill, Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson said while discussing the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in the House of Lords last week.
The Baroness said the impact of the bill on pharmacists has not been discussed and said it was “unclear” what they can “actually opt out of”.
She said clarity was needed on what the “provision of assistance” meant, more specifically if it refers to opting out “of the conversation or of the whole process”.
Read more: Scottish parliament votes against assisted dying bill
“I believe it is a deeply flawed bill that is economically risky and fails to safeguard the rights of organisations and individuals who want to conscientiously object,” she added.
Clarity
The debate sought to establish an opt-in model for healthcare professionals as requested by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) and other royal colleges for GPs, psychiatrists and nurses.
The healthcare bodies do not want “a vague formal right to opt out” but have a framework “in which their rights are clear”, said Baroness Stephanie Fraser.
“It is imperative that this opt-in is explicitly referred to in the Bill to ensure that participation is a positive choice, and to avoid it being presumed or open to pressure that all professionals would participate unless they opted out,” she said.
Read more: ‘Serious concerns’: RPS Scotland opposes assisted dying bill
Baroness Nuala O’Loan also supported an amendment for a specialist register for pharmacists involved in assisted dying to be kept by the General Pharmaceutical Council.
Fraser referred to the Scottish Parliament’s decision to vote against its assisted dying bill earlier this month, saying one of the main objections was around the “lack of clarity of the protections for conscientious objectors”.
“Can the noble and learned Lord confirm his response to the royal colleges’ call for an opt-in system to be adopted, and how can he guarantee that no one will face legal or professional repercussions, including indirect ones, for refusing to participate in assisted dying?” she said.
Read more: Assisted dying and pharmacy: Where does liability lie?
The RPS in Scotland was formally opposed to the bill in Scotland due to the “removal of vital protections to protect pharmacists”.
In November, C+D reported on where “liability would lie” in assisted dying if errors are made when dispensing an “approved substance” used to bring about death from a community pharmacy.
In June, MPs voted in favour of the assisted dying bill at its final reading in the House of Commons, narrowly passing it through to the Lords with a majority of just 23.
Read more: MPs pass assisted dying bill as pharmacist MP backs new clause
Ahead of that vote, a pharmacist and PhD researcher at the University of Strathclyde had warned pharmacists’ voices are “missing” from discussions, both current and historical, on the topic of conscientious objection in assisted dying.
It followed MPs admitting they “have probably not spoken enough” about the assisted dying bill’s “impact on pharmacists”.
