I should like to follow the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and suggest that the most important word in subsection (1)(a) of the amendment is the word "travel". However, my point is slightly different from her point. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said, the sole limit of this amendment is to exculpate those people who assist in making travel arrangements and who travel. I see the noble Lord nodding. If that is literally the case as the amendment has been drafted, as I believe it inevitably to be, then it must mean that the amendment will totally fail in its purpose of exculpating persons who go with their loved ones to a clinic in Switzerland or somewhere else for this purpose.
Imagine that the family has arrived in Zurich at Ludwig Minelli’s clinic. The travel is over. They see a doctor; there is consultation. They are there to give moral support and presence to their loved ones. They are there at events leading up to death. They are clearly giving aid and comfort—as is their very purpose, the purpose of their presence there. But the travel is over. That means that all those acts—and they are the crucially important acts—would be beyond the scope of this amendment.
Coroners and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Elystan-Morgan
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 7 July 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Coroners and Justice Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c610 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:43:18 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_575643
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_575643
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_575643