Assisted Dying

and why I oppose what is being proposed.......

End of Life

The House of Commons is always at it best when MPs discuss ‘unwhipped’ business - such as matters of conscience. Individual MPs express themselves with passion, and confidence. Their background and history; their upbringing and beliefs are often exposed to scrutiny. Curious alliances are formed across the House. The atmosphere is electric. It is a very heavy responsibility to be asked to vote on something as important, something which will affect life in Britain for generations to come, literally a matter of life and death- like the Assisted Dying vote tomorrow. So I do not envy the heart and soul and brain searching which every single one of the 650 MPs will , or at least should be currently be going through as they prepare to cast their vote.

I do understand very well some of the arguments in favour of assisted dying. I know of the agony at end of life; and have listened carefully to those who are passionately supportive of it. But my own conviction remains strongly opposed to it for a variety of reasons. I am not ashamed to admit that I come from a Scots Presbyterian background; and that I am influenced on this and similar ethical matters by my late Father who was a Minister in the Church of Scotland and who was passionately opposed to Euthenasia, and to abortion by choice. I make no great claims to the strength of my own religious convictions; but I do feel strongly about the sanctity of human life.

With that as background I am concerned that a vote in the House of Commons might have such great consequences without a great deal more thought and debate at very least. For it to occur as a Private Members backbench Bill discussed for a few hours on a Friday seems to me to be wrong. If indeed there are strong medical reasons for it; if we believe that it will help a great many terminally ill people in the way that is being described, then it should be a matter for the Government to explain why and to bring forward a Government Bill. That should very probably be after its inclusion as a main topic in the Manifesto. There should be much more consultation- perhaps a Royal Commission, maybe even a referendum on something which is as important as this is.

Then I am uneasy about the coercion question – including self-coercion. “I don’t want to be a burden on my family, nor to use up all of my savings which I would rather they had for housing or education”’ far less positive coercion by greedy relatives. I am concerned that this Bill might well be the’ thin end of the wedge’ with some of the restrictions eased as years go on- as happened with the Abortion Act. And I am concerned that what doctors have always done within the Hippocratic Oath- quietly seeking not to preserve life unduly or needlessly - would by this Act become justiciable in the courts. Was what the doctor did or did not do the right thing under this Act? Did they administer the correct level of drugs and of the right kind? What was the nature of their discussions with the relatives? These and a thousand similar questions need a great deal more careful consideration than the procedure which is being proposed.

So my own view is that is a rushed and ill considered Bill being brought into law by a flawed process and without due consideration; that it makes a medical and ethical matter into a legal one justiciable in the courts; and above all that it is a fundamental breach of one of my own long-held convictions about the sanctity of human life.

So I am in a way relieved that I do not have to take this great decision which my 650 colleagues will do tomorrow. But if it was me, if I was still an MP, I would be voting against the Bill.

Photo by Dominik Lange on Unsplash