Today, I voted against a private members' bill that would legalise assisted suicide for terminally ill adults expected to pass away within six months. It was a free vote - meaning no party whip - and I voted having considered the legalisation in detail, constituents' views, and my conscience.
I do not doubt that the bill was well-intentioned and that colleagues who voted in favour believe it would end needless suffering at the end of life. Whilst I appreciate and sympathise with that view, my assessment of the bill is that the proposals are impractical, devalue life, inadequately protect vulnerable people, and irreversibly change society's approach to death.
Firstly, the proposals are unworkable. For example, the bill relies on a high court judge to approve any request for an assisted death. However, the Family Division of the UK High Court, which would consider these cases, already has a significant and growing backlog of public and private cases and couldn't cope with the additional workload without significant change. It simply wouldn't be possible to devote sufficient time to ensure people requesting assisted suicide were not coerced.
Secondly, the proposals devalue life. I have heard from many constituents on both sides of the argument. But I have been touched by the stories of families who cherish those last few months, weeks and even hours with their loved ones who might have otherwise chosen to die sooner. Assisted suicide legislation must require a person to be mentally and physically capable of making the decision and administering the medication themselves. But the inevitable consequence of this is that people will likely choose to die sooner than they might like - meaning the person dying and their families lose precious time together.
Thirdly, the safeguards are inadequate. As I have already outlined, the family court's approval is not a practical check against coercion. While the bill proposes other safeguards, I fear that people will feel pressured to end their life early. Worrying about being considered a burden on loved ones is a familiar feeling. It will almost inevitably lead people to die earlier than they might like, and I do not see how legislation - even with the best of intentions – would stop some from prematurely curtailing their lives. Similarly, depression is common among the terminally ill, making it difficult to ascertain whether someone is mentally able to make a life-ending decision. But, most importantly, unless end-of-life care is superb - and at times it isn't - people may feel no choice but to end life early at the suggestion of a doctor.
Finally, if legalised, assisted suicide will change society's approach to death irreversibly. Once society accepts the principle that people have the right to assisted suicide, this law will not stop at terminally ill adults. In Belgium and the Netherlands, two nations which took this decision two decades ago, children can be euthanised. They also allow people with disabilities or mental illnesses to ask a doctor to end their lives. Canada's new law has similarly expanded beyond terminal illness after legal challenges. Whether legislators or courts decide these changes, safeguards erode once societies accept the principle. With more people choosing to end their lives and a societal expectation to do so, then end-of-life and other care will likely decline, removing people's choice.
There are compassionate voices on either side of this debate, and I know some constituents will disagree with my vote. I am disappointed that this legislation has been rushed into Parliament with little time for debate or consideration. But fundamentally, I could not vote for the assisted dying bill, which will inevitably curtail life rather than improve end-of-life care so people can spend their last days in comfort surrounded by family.
