Tomorrow, Members of Parliament will vote on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in a free vote.  

This is a serious issue, one which goes to the heart of our beliefs about the purpose with which we enter and live in the world, and the ways in which we leave it.  

​

In the lead-up to this vote, hundreds of constituents have been in touch with me to share their views on the Bill, their experiences, and the experiences of their loved ones which inform those views. I am grateful to every single one of them.  

​

I have also organised roundtable discussions with constituents both for and against the legislation, which have served as kind and respectful forums to discuss the content of and rationale behind the Bill. Thank you to everyone who attended these.  

​

I would also like to thank Kim Leadbeater for carrying the responsibility of this issue on her shoulders, and for listening to me and so many colleagues as we weighed up our decisions around the Bill.  

​

I have been genuinely undecided on this legislation for some time and have spent considerable time reflecting on both the principle and the practice of assisted dying. In principle I do not have an objection to assisted dying: I believe that, with the options available from modern medicine for living longer, it should be up to us when we exit this world, and that those who endure painful terminal illnesses should have the right to choose a painless and dignified death.  

​

I also bear in mind that methods of assisted dying are available to those with physical ability and financial means to travel to undergo the procedure. This raises with me strong concern about the fairness of the current UK position. This legislation does not exist isolated from the international picture.  

​

However, I do have concerns about what this legislation will mean in practice. I am deeply concerned about the impact of assisted dying on the relationship between doctor and patient, the risks of coercion in patient decision making and the role of the proxy. I recognise that there are many reasons that somebody could be coerced into ending their life before they were ready or even feel that it was the ‘right thing to do’ to avoid ‘being a burden’. I acknowledge that there are strong safeguards in this legislation, which I believe have recognised some concerns about the power of a single doctor or a mistaken diagnosis.

 

I do think that the knowledge and availability of physician-assisted suicide will forever change the relationship between doctor and patient. Whether this is a good thing or not, it is a serious change which needs to be considered thoroughly.  

​

Ultimately, I have decided to vote for this legislation at Second Reading for three core reasons.   First, I believe that the current framework does not reflect the changes to life and death brought about through modern medicine and that is the responsibility of Parliament to consider the effects of this. Second, but linked to this, I believe that there can and should be a choice for individuals at the end of life. Third, I have concluded that the case for changing the current legislative framework is strong enough to consider further debate. 

​

But this is not unconditional support. If the Bill continues to further stages, it will be important to consider what further measures to safeguard against coercion are available. Further iterations of the Bill should bring complete reassurance that doctors can opt-out of all parts of the assisted dying process and tighter requirements for regularly reviewing the practice of assisted dying. If this is not done, I may have to vote against it in future.  ​

​

If this Bill is to become law, we need to all work together to build a society where it is easier to have this conversation.  

 

We need to build an NHS fit for the future where the quality of palliative care cannot be a reason to oppose this change.  

​

We need to empower and bring together those with terminal illnesses so that they can never believe that they are a burden on their loved ones or on our public services.  

​

We need to learn from how this discussion has so far been conducted and look at how we can bring about a greater compassion in politics and respect between both sides of this debate and other similarly emotive topics.

 

I hope that everybody reading this can understand the reasons for which I will vote in favour of this legislation. No matter whether you support or oppose it, please know that I have listened to your voice and will carry it with me as your Member of Parliament as I go into the chamber tomorrow.