Dr. Simon Mills:

I will try to answer the Deputy as quickly as possible. One of the things that is always important around all of this is the use of language. As should be clear from what Professor Huxtable has said today and what Dr. Louise Campbell said when she appeared before the committee last week, it probably is not fair to describe those who point to slippery slope arguments as being engaged in fearmongering. That is not helpful language. It is absolutely true that where people are not careful in how legislation is framed and how the terms of assisted dying are framed, there are examples around the world whereby the way in which assisted dying is delivered has changed over time. I do not think anybody is helped by saying somebody is fearmongering by pointing out this can happen.

That leads on to the Deputy's next question. If the slippery slope concern is a legitimate one, which I think it is in the sense that it is a concern people legitimately have, then how do we address it? We are already halfway along the road to doing so because we are talking about discriminating between the different types of legislation that are out there. The Deputy pointed to two models that certainly seem to me, from my reading of the various comparative Acts, to have attractions other legislation does not have. I refer to the New Zealand and Oregon examples.

That is a sensible place to look. It is helpful also that New Zealand has a legal background similar to ours. Clearly it is possible to legislate for it. The simple answer to the question is: "If you do not want the consequences that may be regarded by reasonably-minded people as unacceptable consequences of, for example, the Belgian legislation, then do not introduce the Belgian legislation." If you do not want the consequences of the Dutch legislation then do not introduce the Dutch legislation. I realise that making laws is very complicated but on this one point, it is not rocket science. Conscientious objection can be managed in a number of ways. I want to draw specific attention to the fact that this is a service that is going to be delivered by clinicians. One thing that became clear from a review of the abortion legislation is the position of those who are lower down in the medical hierarchy, such as junior doctors and non-consultant hospital doctors who work in institutions that may have an ethos that is one way or the other. In the sense of assisted dying let us assume it is an institution that is culturally less welcoming towards assisted dying or culturally more welcoming towards assisted dying. The position of those who are within the medical career structure and their freedom to exercise their conscientious objection, whether it is in favour or against abortion or in favour or against assisted dying, is something we need to give some thought to in any guidance that would accompany legislation. It can certainly be legislated for.