argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Assisted Dying Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-01-16
Topic: Health
David Alton (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said. He is one of the foremost medical authorities in your Lordships’ House. We know that many of the royal colleges and the British Medical Association, speaking for 153,000 doctors, say that it is not possible to legislate safely—which is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made However, I recall that when my late father was dying and I went to spend time with him during the last part of his life, the doctor told me that I should make long-term provision for long-term care. After he left the room it was the nurse, who was the wife of one of the policemen who worked in the Houses of Parliament at that time, when I was in another place, who said to me, "David, you don’t need to make long-term provision. In my view, your father will be dead before the end of this weekend". Needless to say, it was the nurse rather than the doctor who got it right Many noble Lords will have read the briefing from the Royal College of Nursing, which arrived only today. It says: "Terminal illnesses are often extremely unpredictable with periods of improvement and deterioration. This can make it extremely difficult to pinpoint when someone might die … we remain concerned that diagnosing that a patient is expected to die within six months could result in inaccurate judgements through no fault of the medical practitioner" That is the point that that noble Lord, Lord Warner, has just made. It could lead to litigation against doctors and nurses if we do not put in far better safeguards than the Bill provides at present.
Assisted Dying Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-01-16
Topic: Health
Ilora Gillian Finlay (Crossbench, Unknown): The noble Lord made some cogent points in relation to this group of amendments. He made me wonder whether he thinks the solution may be that the discussions could happen earlier but the provision of the assistance to end life should be much later. The timeframe could change. Discussion of whether someone is terminally ill could start much earlier, and could therefore take more time, but the delivery of the lethal drugs could happen much later. For clarity, they are not morphine or heroin. The drugs are a massive overdose of barbiturates, which is completely different and would never be used therapeutically. That is the way that you end people’s lives under the Oregon and other legislation. That might be a solution. I also ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, whether he would consider that type of solution in looking again at the clause.
Assisted Dying Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-01-16
Topic: Health
Nuala O'Loan (Crossbench, Unknown): I should like clarification from the noble and learned Lord. I think he said that Clause 2 required two practitioners, but on my reading it requires only one. If there is one practitioner and a person is diagnosed with a terminal illness, the terminal illness is, if you like, the gate into everything else in the Bill. That I have a terminal illness allows everything else to follow. If one doctor diagnoses a terminal illness, there is the possibility that that doctor may do so at the behest of relatives. The motives of those relatives may be benign or malign. If the person gets a diagnosis of that kind from a medical specialist, that may change their whole perspective on life. The mere fact that someone has said to them, "You are terminally ill. You are going to die in six months", when that has not been said before, may lead them to think, "Perhaps I should seek assisted suicide" That may be quite an unintended consequence of limiting this, but at least if we have two doctors, in some form or another, as suggested by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, surely there would be some protection. As I read the Bill as it stands, there is very little protection for the vulnerable person who is lying in bed and seeking some way to find a way through this. Terminal illness and serious pain have a number of effects. One is to cloud judgment and another is to sap the zest for life. That zest, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others have said, may well be restored by palliative care, which relieves the pain, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has said. This is such an unsatisfactory provision that I should like the noble and learned Lord to confirm whether I am right.
Assisted Dying Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-01-16
Topic: Health
Ilora Gillian Finlay (Crossbench, Unknown): I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having finally got on to the timeframe issue and for his acknowledgement that, on a balance of probabilities, things are more likely to be accurate within a shorter timeframe than at six months. Does he accept that it might be worth considering uncoupling the time in which the discussions can occur from the time within which the prognosis indicates that it is eligible for the lethal drugs to be taken to the patient? That was the question that I asked the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and on which the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, came in, but the noble and learned Lord has not answered that question at all.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — House of Lords, 2015-01-20
Topic: Health
Raymond Jolliffe (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, when the noble Lord replies, will he deal with the specific issue of abortive travel costs—flights that have been booked and paid for—and accommodation, which probably means hotel rooms, because the journey cannot be continued?
NHS: Accident and Emergency Services — House of Lords, 2015-01-07
Topic: Health
Ilora Gillian Finlay (Crossbench, Unknown): Can the Government confirm that they are working with the College of Emergency Medicine—and I declare an interest as a fellow of that college—to manage their STEP programme? It requires sustainable staffing levels within emergency medicine departments, renegotiation of the tariff to make sure that they are adequately funded and dealing urgently with exit block. The college has calculated it would free 20,000 bed days if delayed discharges from the rest of the system were able to happen on time. The "P" of course is for primary care co-location which has already been addressed. Does the Minister recognise that these departments are working incredibly hard? Although people are waiting longer, by and large they are managing to protect outcomes for individuals who are severely ill and who are seen.
Medical Innovation Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-01-23
Topic: Health
Harry Kenneth Woolf (Crossbench, Unknown): I hope the Minister will forgive me for saying that I do not think he is right in saying that the amendment would in any way change the standard. It is only adding a requirement to keep records. That does not change the standard of care which is required. It puts on the doctor an obligation to do something in addition, but I suggest with respect that it does not change the standard.
Medical Innovation Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-01-23
Topic: Health
Harry Kenneth Woolf (Crossbench, Unknown): There are provisions as to machinery and provisions that deal with standards of care. I think that this is a machinery requirement. You could not sue the doctor because he had not reported something. It is something that the law requires but I do not think it is intended that this should be enforced by criminal sanctions. There is certainly no specific provision of that sort However, it would exclude the ability to take advantage of Clause 1. You have to do Clause 1 in a way that complies with the Act, and the requirement that is now being inserted says that if you are going to do so, you have to do this. The implication is that if you do not do it, you will not get the benefit of Clause 1. This does not mean that the doctor is going to be liable for negligence just because he has not signed the register. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has made clear and those who have taken part in the debate so far have emphasised, the common-law position remains the same. This is an additional mechanism to allow innovation. I therefore suggest that a machinery provision does not do anything else than act on a requirement that you have to go through if you want to take advantage of the Bill.
Medical Innovation Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-01-23
Topic: Health
Harry Kenneth Woolf (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down for the last time, I am very conscious of the kind things said by the Minister about my interventions, and I can assure him that I hold his approach to all matters of this sort in equally high esteem, if not higher. He is a lesson to us all in the care with which he approaches these matters Just before we leave the subject, I want to draw attention to the words, "comply with any professional requirements as to registration" That is a very important limitation in the amendment because—as I understand it; I did not have anything to do with the drafting—it presupposes that there should be professional requirements. Surely we can rely on the medical profession to put in sensible requirements.
Medical Innovation Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-01-23
Topic: Health
Simon Denis Brown (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, before the Minister finally sits down, does he agree that it would be desirable that any professional requirements of registration should deal not only with innovation, "under the provisions of this Act", but also with innovation that may well be outside the provisions of this Bill but are covered by Bolam and expressly contemplated in Clause 2(1): namely, "a departure from the existing range of accepted medical treatments" That, too, needs to be recorded and registered because it may point the way ahead. As matters stand, that is not within the compass of the proposed amendment to Clause 1 Perhaps I may further ask the Minister whether he agrees with me that the real purpose of this Bill is to carry Bolam a stage further. Bolam applies if a proposed innovation is, "a departure from the existing range of accepted medical treatments", and is, "supported by a responsible body of medical opinion" Clause 1 of the Bill, as was made plain by the first proposed amendment, deals with a situation where, "a departure from the existing range of accepted medical treatments", may not actually be supported by, but has the respect of, "a responsible body of medical opinion" In other words, the, "responsible body of medical opinion", may not support it, but, taking that into account and having regard to patient safety, none the less respects it and therefore implicitly allows it to go forward as a responsible treatment. That is outside Bolam but within the compass of the Bill.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Amendment and Guidance) Regulations 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-03-23
Topic: Health
Frederick Butler (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, perhaps I may pursue briefly a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on who is to monitor compliance with the Prevent duty. The draft guidance referred to HEFCE undertaking the duty, but, as the noble Baroness pointed out, there is a difficulty about that, because the duty covers institutions with which HEFCE has no funding relationship. I see that in the revised guidance the reference to HEFCE has been removed and there is now reference to "an appropriate body". Can the Minister tell us a little more about the Government’s thinking on that? I express the hope on my own account that it does not imply that a new quango—a new regulatory body—is to be set up for this purpose.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-02-24
Topic: Health
Nuala O'Loan (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I very much support the Motion that has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for the reasons he very articulately expressed. The Minister has reassured us significantly about these regulations, but he did express many of the uncertainties that remain. In moving his Motion, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, talked about uncertainty. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, gave us graphic details of the uncertainties of the two processes that are proposed, which may result in increased risk of chromosomal defects. In the light of all that uncertainty, how can it be right that your Lordships’ House be asked to make a decision of this magnitude before the conclusion of all the necessary research I want to talk briefly about one issue that relates to the protection of women’s health. We are told that these proposals are all about advancing women’s rights, and yet it seems to me that we are at risk of overlooking one very important matter in relation to which these procedures plainly do not advance women’s rights. That is the repercussions of the increased demand for donor eggs for the women who donate the eggs. The requirement for more eggs is a consequence of scientific development, and that is widely accepted. A Nuffield Council on Bioethics report looked into the ethical issues around mitochondrial donation and stated: "One of the major barriers mentioned by scientists when assessing the potential for cell reconstruction techniques to become treatments is the fact that many more egg donors will need to be found to undertake the research required in order for the safety and efficacy of PNT and MST to be established, and if therapies are to be provided in future. A shortage of egg donors is an acknowledged problem in respect of donations for reproduction, and it is not yet clear whether egg donors would be more likely to come forward".
Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-02-24
Topic: Health
David Alton (Crossbench, Unknown): I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but, given that my noble friend Lord Patel mentioned this case, perhaps I might reinforce what she is saying, because Newcastle is not offering to provide donation opportunities for women but is asking them whether they will sell their eggs, at £500 per cycle. We all know that that can lead to hyperovulation syndrome, an issue which I raised in your Lordships’ House last week and which I know concerns many of us from all sides of this argument. So there is another dimension involved in this. My noble friend Lord Patel was also right to say to my noble friend Lady O’Loan that when we debated these issues in 2009 many of us pointed to things like adult stem cells and the work being done by Professor Shinya Yamanaka. We said then that arguing for animal/human hybrids was a diversion when much more important work, like that which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has just mentioned, could have been undertaken.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-02-24
Topic: Health
David Alton (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, the noble Lord and I agree on much of what he has been saying today. However, in 2013—just two years ago—when he spoke at the Intelligence Squared debate, he said: "And it’s worth bearing in mind that abnormal children have been born as a result of mitochondrial transfer. This has been completely unpredictable" I wonder what, if anything, has happened to change his mind about that. I suspect that he and I are agreed that there obviously are dangers involved in this and safety questions that he will want to address. May I also ask him—and I will not intervene again—whether he agrees with what my noble friend Lord Patel said earlier about the situation in China? I have with me the document Fertility and Sterility 2003, vol. 80, published on 3 September 2003, which was written by Zhang and others, who looked at the procedure that was used in China. Although we were told that this was not cytoplasmic transfer, does he agree with my noble friend Lord Patel, or does he agree with what is here in the statement that this was a pregnancy derived from human nuclear transfer?
Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-02-24
Topic: Health
Sheila Clare Hollins (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I take a rather different view from some of my eminent medical colleagues. I have worked for over 30 years with families of severely disabled children. As a psychiatrist—and as the mother myself of a child born with a severe developmental disability—my heart goes out to those parents facing the prospect of inherited mitochondrial disorders. As a mother, I understand what is called the moral imperative to try to help. However, our first responsibility must be to the children who may be created through these proposed interventions: the most important moral imperative must be to do no harm A new technology of such potential importance must take as long as is needed to be as sure as possible of its safety. Being first is not always best. I have carefully read the HFEA 2014 review of scientific methods. It has been implied that the scientific reviews have not raised any concerns, but in paragraph 3.7.25 the review states, "although the results with the two techniques continue to be promising, further experiments need to be carried out before introducing either into clinical practice to provide further reassurance about efficiency and safety" I asked a Written Question in December asking whether clinical trials were being planned and I am grateful for the helpful reply from the Minister and the mention he made of it in his opening remarks—although I disagree with his interpretation of medicine, which is defined much more broadly in the European directive. The Minister also explained that, "for any new IVF technique there will need to be careful monitoring of the procedure and, subsequently, any pregnancies" But we are not talking about pregnancies primarily; this is me as the psychiatrist talking now. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, pointed out, we are talking about children—children who will, we hope, grow up to be healthy human beings, and who will themselves be able to have healthy children. But what if they do not In paragraph 3.7.29 the HFEA expert panel said: "Until knowledge has built up that suggests otherwise, the panel recommends that any female born following MST or PNT"— maternal spindle transfer or pronuclear transfer— "should be advised, when old enough, that she may herself be at risk of having a child with a significant level of mutant mtDNA, putting her child, and if female, subsequent generations at risk of mitochondrial disease" The science is complicated, but there is apparently a real possibility that resulting embryos from a woman born after MST or PNT could be heteroplasmic—
Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Select Committee Report) — House of Lords, 2015-03-10
Topic: Health
Ilora Gillian Finlay (Crossbench, Unknown): I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness said. Will she clarify whether she agrees with me that a so-called best interest decision that leaves a patient in pain and distress is actually not a valid best interest decision because it is not in the interests of the person to be left in pain and distress? That decision would, therefore, be open to challenge?
Jimmy Savile: NHS Investigations — House of Lords, 2015-02-26
Topic: Health
Sheila Clare Hollins (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, senior hospital administrators were criticised in these reports, but senior civil servants were also responsible for facilitating Savile’s influence and access to Broadmoor and Stoke Mandeville hospitals. Have the civil servants been identified? How have they been held accountable? Have the survivors received an individual apology for the governance failures that allowed this catalogue of abuse to take place? I understand the Secretary of State’s general apology, but I think an individual apology would be appropriate for each and every survivor.
Francis Report: Update and Response — House of Lords, 2015-02-11
Topic: Health
Susan Lilian Primrose Cunliffe-Lister (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I congratulate the Government on accepting this second report. The report states that staff working with vulnerable patients should be responsible. How will the Minister make this happen? Patients and carers should be listened to. They can become whistleblowers, but may feel that they will be branded as troublemakers. How can he stop this happening?
Deregulation Bill — House of Lords, 2015-02-11
Topic: Health
Helen Warnock (Crossbench, Unknown): I rise simply to underline everything that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has just said. It seems to me a disgraceful possibility that individual private clinics might be allowed to exploit these vulnerable people. The words that the noble Lord quoted show that this could happen automatically. It is not just that people may be allowed: the suggestion is that they will be allowed, unless some very special consideration applies. I therefore beg the Minister to reconsider this part of the Bill.
Deregulation Bill — House of Lords, 2015-02-05
Topic: Culture
Michael Berkeley (Crossbench, Unknown): I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I have just one simple question. I do not think that this amendment is about decriminalisation, it is simply about timing and budgets. The Government have often said that business and arts institutions need to know what lies ahead in terms of budgeting. It may well be that decriminalisation should happen, but as I understand it, that is not what this amendment is about.