Thank you to those who have taken the time to write to me about assisted dying and the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-25. Assisted dying is a complex and emotive issue, and there are strongly held ethical and moral views on both sides of the debate. I appreciate all the carefully considered views that all of you have shared with me throughout this process.
Successive Governments, of both parties, have taken the position that the law on assisted dying is a matter of conscience for individual MPs. Therefore, in the report stage vote of Kim Leadbeater’s Bill on assisted dying, MPs voted without direction from their political party.
Deciding what to vote for has been a difficult decision due to the strongly held views of both sides of the debate. We also need to acknowledge that we need to fix the NHS and improve the standard of healthcare in this country, and this includes palliative care. Regardless of the outcome of this Bill, I am glad that since its introduction, the Government has pledged more funding for palliative care and hospice services.
During this vote, I voted for the Bill to pass its report stage. I did this for several reasons. The biggest reason why I voted this way is that I believe we need to allow individuals the freedom to make informed decisions about their lives. However, I was clear that I would only support this Bill as long as there are sufficient safeguards in place.
This Bill is different from legislation in Canada and some European countries which allow for wider eligibility to access assisted dying. In those countries, the legislation includes eligibility on the basis of ‘unbearable suffering’, which is not present in this Bill. In contrast, the legislation before MPs is based on the model used in Australia, New Zealand and the United States which only gives the choice of assisted dying to terminally ill, mentally competent adults. In particular, this Bill states that people will be able to end their lives only if they are in the final six months of their life and who have the mental capacity to do so.
As part of my concerns over the safeguarding aspects of the legislation, I supported a range of amendments aimed at protecting vulnerable and disabled people and increasing the transparency and accountability of the proposed assisted dying system. With the addition of these amendments, I believe the Bill does have sufficient safeguards to protect people with vulnerabilities and people with disabilities, with these safeguards strengthened by its passage through a rigorous committee stage. Additionally, if the Bill goes on to be passed by both Houses of Parliament, it will face further scrutiny and strengthening during its four-year implementation period while the Health Secretary lays down the specific regulations that will govern the provision of assisted dying. In concert with the scrutiny of Parliament, I believe this will provide ample opportunity to address any remaining concerns from those opposed to the Bill.
Nevertheless, I am aware that many constituents and indeed other Parliamentarians still have concerns about the safeguards. It is my view that the addition of oversight from the Disability Advisory Board, the involvement of doctors and psychiatrists throughout the process, and the mandated statutory review of the entire assisted dying system by the Government provide strong safeguards against the concerns of coercion and abuse that so many shared with me.
Alongside this, those seeking assisted dying can be referred for further psychiatric assessment if any concerns over their mental health or competency emerge throughout the application process, and the terms of the review into the end-of-life care system mandated by the Bill has been broadened to be more thorough and reinforced by multiple implementation reviews examining the effects of the Bill.
The strength of these amendments rightfully reflects the gravity of this legislation, as well as the legitimate concerns raised by those opposing the Bill. After its passage through the House of Commons, the Bill will go to the House of Lords and the Bill will face similar scrutiny. Please note, that if the Bill is amended by the Lords and the safeguards are altered this could change how I vote in later debates.
I also want to make absolutely clear that assisted dying should never become an alternative to high-quality palliative and end-of-life care, rather a constituent part of a holistic approach to an end-of-life care system that can properly meet all the diverse needs that people may have as they approach the end of their life. People deserve dignity in dying, and each person nearing the end of their life should feel reassured and safe in the knowledge they will receive the very best care.
I also recognise the concerns raised by many of my colleagues regarding the possible consequences of this Bill for ethnic minority communities, given they already face substantial structural inequalities in accessing existing NHS services. While this possibility is absolutely worrying, stopping this Bill will not address those inequalities, and regardless of the passage of this legislation, there must be decisive action from the Government to address the challenges faced by ethnic minority communities in accessing equitable care.
Whilst I understand that you may agree or disagree with how I have voted, I have taken a considerable amount of time to engage with the arguments for and against supporting this Bill. I have not made this decision lightly. I respect all the points of view and acknowledge the concerns of both sides of the argument that have been shared with me.
With this in mind, I will be closely monitoring the rest of the Bill’s passage through Parliament and if I believe that the Bill’s safeguards have been watered down by the House of Lords then I will vote against the Bill on its return to the House of Commons with no hesitation.
Thank you again to those who contacted me.