Proceeding contribution from Baroness Barker (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 16 June 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Health and Social Care Bill.
Health and Social Care Bill
My Lords, I wish to address an issue in Amendment No. 10. In doing so, I thank the Minister for the work that she has done to bring forward the set of amendments which I believe she has now passed and which are now part of the Bill. Not only has she dealt with this matter and the House in a fair and exemplary manner, but the legislation is a great deal stronger as a result. I congratulate her and the Bill team. I am in something of a dilemma as regards Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. I was fully in favour of Amendment No. 10 and could not see what objection the Government could have to it because the word ““rights”” is far more inclusive than the concept of safety. For example, ““rights”” would include a patient’s right to expect that their safety would be taken into consideration by providers of services. Were I a government draftsman, I should be delighted to have a much wider and looser concept with which to deal, and, on balance, I still feel that way. However, I have a slight dilemma as regards the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, which refers to rights but not to human rights. People who need social care have very few legal rights. For example, there is no right to receive services. However, as human beings they have an expectation that their human rights will be regarded. On the issue of safety, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, is doing the Government a favour by proposing an alternative wording and I encourage the Minister to look at that seriously. I refer to double effect. Some medical treatments can have serious adverse consequences for some patients. Doctors may recommend those treatments because they believe it is in the best interest of a patient to do so even though they know that there may be adverse consequences. In doing so they might compromise, or pose a threat to, the safety of a patient. They take a calculated risk for a beneficial reason. This is slightly complicated but, were I in the Government’s shoes, I would prefer to have a measure which did not mention safety. On balance I support the approach taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, but I would prefer the measure to refer to human rights rather than just to rights. However, I believe that she is on the right track and is offering the Government something which they would be very wise to accept.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 702 c876
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Carers Agency nurses Hospitals Health services Families Human rights Disease control Employment agencies Infectious diseases General Social Care Council NHS Patients Managers Public participation Mental Health Act Commission MRSA Registration Temporary employment Regulation Social services Healthcare Commission Commission for Social Care Inspection Care Quality Commission Local involvement networks
- Legislation
- Health and Social Care Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 23:40:05 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_482131
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_482131
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_482131