Today Members of Parliament voted on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life Bill).
This is an emotive and complex issue, and I respect that there are different views on this issue.
I voted for the Bill. Making this decision was not an easy one and I want to assure you that I looked in detail at the Bill, considering evidence from all sides, hearing from experts and people with their own personal experiences. I want to thank all constituents who have contacted me to share your thoughts and experiences- I have considered it all with great care.
The Bill passed by 314 votes to 291 and will now go to the House of Lords. I voted for this Bill because I believe that terminally ill people, subject to safeguards, should have choice and peace of mind at the end of their lives and control over the manner and timing of their death. But, it is not enough to believe in the principle of Assisted Dying, as legislators we have a responsibility to be sure this is a good, strong law with robust safeguards which this Bill has.
As I decided whether to vote for this Bill, I asked myself whether the status quo is acceptable, and it isn’t. The current legal system is failing dying people and their loved ones.
Hundreds of terminally ill people end their own lives each year. Assisted dying is already happening -but only those who can afford it can travel to Switzerland, usually alone to avoid putting their loved ones at risk of prosecution.
In contrast, some people with terminal illnesses for whom palliative care is not enough, have no choice about their death – often enduring intolerable suffering- and no peace of mind as they come to the end of their lives. I believe we need to change the current system which is unjust and has no safeguards against coercion or abuse.
I believe this Bill has robust safeguards in place which have been strengthened through the parliamentary process. The Bill only applies to people who are already dying.
It gives the choice to be provided with assistance to end their own life to adults with a terminal illness that have less than six months to live, who are mentally competent and have expressed a ‘clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life’.
In order to access an assisted death, the person has to go through multiple stages including two assessments by different doctors. The amendments to the Bill in committee also included establishing a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner and expert panels.
This means, every application would now be scrutinised by a multi-disciplinary panel consisting of a senior legal figure, a consultant psychiatrist and a social worker.
Specific measures are also in place to protect against coercion. This includes training on assessing capacity and on identifying domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse for participating doctors.
In addition, a person who, by dishonesty, coercion or pressure, induces another person to have an assisted death would face lifetime imprisonment. It is also clear that a person is not to be considered terminally ill by reason only of the person having one or both of a mental disorder or a disability.
The Bill also mandates support for people with learning disabilities or similar challenges through guaranteed access to independent advocates and establishes a disability advisory board. To reiterate, currently there are no safeguards to protect against coercion and abuse.
There has been much discussion through the debate on the Bill about palliative care, with people saying we should first fix palliative care before contemplating introducing Assisted Dying. I do not believe this should be an either/or.
We must also have high quality palliative and end of life care. In fact, there is evidence that the introduction of assisted dying has been linked to improvements in palliative care in several jurisdictions. I welcome the focus that has been put on improving palliative care as part of a long overdue debate about the choices offered to people towards the end of their lives. I want the very best possible choice for everyone.
Finally, a note on process. In addition to hours of debate in parliament, the Bill went through approximately 90 hours of detailed scrutiny at Committee stage and more than 100 amendments were agreed.
Ultimately, reform of the existing situation is long overdue. Dying people deserve compassion, control over their own deaths and peace of mind as they come to the end of their lives. This strong safeguarded Bill would replace an unacceptable status quo.
I appreciate that some constituents will disagree with my decision, and I welcome the respectful and compassionate way in which this discussion has taken place and respect those who have come to a different opinion.
Alice