Today, I cast my vote in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Such decisions are difficult and they are binary. Ultimately, they are personal but informed by countless hours over many weeks of discussions with people from all walks of life – legal experts, medical professionals, and individuals with or without lived experience. I have reviewed statistics, read articles, and listened to personal stories – both from supporters and opponents. On balance, I believe it is crucial for this Bill to advance to the next stage in Parliament for thorough consideration.
First and foremost, I want to express my gratitude to everyone who reached out to me regarding the Bill. I am deeply honoured that so many of you trusted me to represent your views. Your letters, filled with your experiences, opinions, and thoughts, have been profoundly moving and thought-provoking. I am especially grateful to those who shared personal experiences with me; your trust is invaluable, and I have carefully considered your stories and will continue to hold them in high regard.
In principle, I believe in the notion of assisted dying. While I understand and respect that others may disagree with me for whatever reasons, this vote is a matter of conscience that I have been entrusted to make.
My vote does not signify unwavering support for the Assisted Dying Bill. Rather, it indicates my support for further exploration and discussion. I believe that assisted dying is an issue that requires deeper consideration. As a nation, we must continue to engage in open and respectful debate, listening to each other and addressing the complexities involved.
Now the Bill has passed, it will progress through the committee stage, report stage, and third reading in both the Commons and the Lords, followed by Royal Assent. I have been interested and persuaded by the argument put forward by Sir David Natzler, a former Clerk of the House, who has suggested that if the Bill were to pass at second reading, the government could then “seek withdrawal or suspension of further proceedings on the bill in return for a public consultation on the issue.” I would like to see consideration of this, so that extra time can be made available for the remaining stages of the Bill. Additionally, I would like to see the House consider authorising a call for oral or written evidence at the committee stage. Given the gravity of this Bill, it is essential that we allocate as much time and consideration as possible and hear from the widest diversity of voices.
In my conversations, I have heard concerns about prognosis, the potential impacts on palliative care, and the implications for the justice system and the NHS. It is important that we fully consider these issues. I strongly support improving palliative care and believe that, if the Bill were to pass, it must coexist with assisted dying. Assisted dying should not be seen as an opposite, but rather as part of a comprehensive approach – alongside palliative care – in determining what the end of life and the choices we face should look like.
I believe the Terminally ill Adults (End of Life) Bill explicitly outlines those it would cover. The person must have an inevitably progressive illness, disease or medical condition that cannot be reversed by treatment. The title and scope would be legally enshrined, ensuring it cannot be expanded. For this reason, I believe the Bill is absolutely robust and will not lead to a ‘slippery slope.’
The substantial merits and impacts of the Bill deserve thorough consideration and assessment. This belief is reflected in my vote, but I respect greatly the views of my colleagues from across the House as I hope you may respect the decision that I have come to. But, as I say, today’s vote will allow further debate and discussion and does not necessarily mean it will make itself into law. Be assured that the stages of parliamentary process – through Bill committee, the Lords and Third Reading – will ensure that the improvements and refinements but Parliament will ultimately decide whether the amended legislation should be added to the statute book.
