Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

The House sat on Friday 29 November 2024 to debate and vote on the Second Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

I was hoping to speak in the debate but I was not called. I thought it was important to let you know what I was going to say and my views on the Bill.

I wanted to start by acknowledging the Hon member for member for Spen Valley who has taken a bold and courageous decision to bring forward this bill

Some have argued that this is not the appropriate procedure for such an important decision. However the procedure is such that Private Members Bills can be used to improve, change, or introduce new legislation if the Government allows the time and I know that many of us many of us have had private members bills and had clauses of those bills then inserted into Government Bills which become law.  

Some have also said that more time is needed but what I have picked up is that there should be a wider debate to discuss the medical side and the ethical side;

But we are here on behalf of our constituents and they trust us to make the decision listening to the debate;

This bill is asking a person to consent to ending their life;

If this is the right way why are Disabled people fearful- of this Bill; these are the words of Kamran Mallick Chief Executive of Disabilities Rights UK:

 “ it is from bitter experience that words and laws do not always add up to protecting Disabled people.

 during the pandemic, where we were often denied life-saving care, and where 60 per cent of all deaths from Covid were those of Disabled people, who comprise 24 per cent of the population.

We have huge empathy for Disabled people who live with pain and wish to make an informed choice to have control over the end of their lives.

However, given the severe inequalities for Disabled people within society, especially relating to the quality of health and independent living support,  upholding quality of life should be the focus of the government.

Giving us dignified and equitable lives should come before putting in place ways of assisting us to die.

I wholeheartedly agree with that view.

Secondly, doctors are trained to save lives and should never be compelled – whether through external pressures or professional obligations to undertake the requirements of the Bill;

We can train others to undertake the process but do not call them doctors because doctors take an oath to “do no harm.”

In my view this could change the trust between a patient and a doctor;

We should be celebrating advancements in medicine;  patients with severe illnesses live longer, because of advancements in medicine often through therapies that slow disease progression,

This is what a Doctor has said about the Bill :

“the UK healthcare system operates under a shared decision-making model. Patients are fully informed of the risks and benefits of their treatment options and have the right to consent to or refuse therapies.”

“An individual mentally capable of requesting assisted dying is also capable of choosing to decline life-prolonging treatments and instead opt for comfort care, allowing the disease to take its course. In this context, involving doctors in providing life-ending measures is contradictory and ethically problematic.”

“A do not resuscitate (DNR) order is a valid option for patients who do not wish to undergo further treatment and request a DNR order.”

“terminal illness” is not an absolute definition.

Doctors say there are numerous documented cases where patients have made unexpected recoveries. This underscores the uncertainty inherent in prognostic labelling and emphasises the potential for recovery, even in seemingly hopeless situations.

Third: Palliative care is nowhere near where we want it to be and hospices as charities struggle to get recognition and have to raise money and often legacies or donations to animal charities are more than to Hospices.

In conclusion if we are so divided on this issue imagine what it will do to families.

As human beings we are programmed to survive;

I do not consider it is for the state to enshrine in legislation the circumstances of whether someone should live or die and for all those reasons, I voted against the Bill.

The Bill passed its second reading by Ayes: 330  Noes: 275