THANK you for your emails and letters which I have read assiduously, alongside those who have spoken to me in person over the years. I know the case for and against assisted suicide is strongly held on all sides as it is such a complex issue that touches the lives of all of us.
Whether you support assisted dying, have some concerns or are outright opposed to it, I have listened to all sides of the debate, and know the thing that unites is the desire for everyone to access a peaceable end, with good symptom and pain control.
I have carried your concerns with me as I reach the point of debating the Bill in Parliament on Friday.
The vote will not be on the principle of assisted dying, but the contents of the Bill itself. After deeply scrutinising the proposals as presented, I will be voting against.
I am deeply troubled that the Bill has been rushed, with important detail left out. For an issue as important as this, it is essential that members of Parliament have enough information and enough time to debate such a huge shift in the law.
I am also extremely concerned that if this Bill was to pass through Parliament it could lead to coercion, rather than protecting people from it. I do not believe it will work safely for everyone and that there is a real danger of putting marginalised communities at risk should it go through Parliament.
Sadly, we know that people do experience coercion in relationships, and while cases may be few, malign coercion is real. Prior to entering Parliament, I worked as a clinician in the NHS and would frequently hear a patient say, “I don’t want to be a burden” and against the cost of social care, their small savings “should go to the grandchildren rather than on my care” or “someone else is more deserving” not least when the NHS is struggling to find beds. I am extremely concerned that, when looking at countries with assisted dying, this is verbalised as a ‘duty’ to die.
If this were not enough, the Bill actually states that a doctor could suggest a patient considers an assisted death. This crosses a Rubicon in medicine. We know the implicit trust someone has in a doctor. They are required to ‘do no harm’, however this Bill changes their role and we should all be deeply concerned.
Further to this, the safeguards within the Bill simply ask for two doctors to satisfy themselves that there is no coercion to die, that the individual has capacity and can make a clear, settled and informed wish to die. It isn’t recorded how they make that determination. Further, it asks that a doctor determines a patient is reasonably expected to die within six months, and yet, we know that determining how long someone has left to live is a very difficult and imprecise process.
When some of the sharpest legal minds in the land, former judges, condemn the Bill, I listen. One says “the Leadbeater Bill falls lamentably short of providing adequate safeguards” describing the stoppage of any appeal as an “extraordinary omission” since a concerned relative or their own doctor cannot appeal. They recognise the dangers of rushing this legislation through. For the law to protect everyone, it needs to be able to be applied consistently, which this Bill fails to do.
The Health and Social Care Select Committee invested 14 months into its inquiry into assisted dying, Parliament has been given just 17 days from the Bill being published. There will be just five hours to debate.
At the moment, so many people do not have access to the care they need at the end of life. Especially in palliative care. Some 70.2 per cent of the public have backed my call for an alternative approach, a Commission on Palliative and End of Life Care. Also, 100,000 people who should access palliative care can’t each year and those that do, it is often from overstretched and underfunded services and far too late.
In York we appreciate the incredible care at St Leonard’s Hospice and Martin’s House for children. One doctor said: “I did not know care like this was possible until I worked there”. This is the pressing issue I am trying to resolve.
With days to go, it is vital that this Bill is voted down to protect our society.
Parliament must make good law, for which this Bill is not.
This article first appeared in York Press on 28 November, 2024