Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Please find a letter to residents on the upcoming vote below:

Dear residents

Now that the Terminal Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has been published, I want to set out my view and explain why I will be voting against it.

I also want to thank everyone who has taken the time to write to me on this issue. This is a complex and emotive issue, and there are strongly held ethical and moral views on both sides of the debate. This is true within the Birmingham Northfield constituency, as it is across the country.

Given this is an issue of conscience, it is right that individual Members of Parliament, rather than the Government, will decide on whether to change the law. I have thought hard about my own position, and I will vote against the proposal when it is debated.

We must judge any system by how it treats the most vulnerable. I have some background in disability rights campaigning, and on the basis of what I have seen, and the testimony of others, I do not believe that either the NHS or the court system are currently in a position to fulfil that duty of care in all cases.

I understand and I am sympathetic to the desire for a right for a person to end their life under controlled and humane circumstances of their own choosing. But the best-designed system of checks and balances will still fail if they are underpinned by attitudes are still outdated, and stigmatising.

I do not mean, in any way, to denigrate the compassion and professionalism of the people who work in the health and court services – quite the opposite. But the hard fact is that those attitudes are still too common. I have seen it in practice. I believe that – in individual cases – inappropriate pressure would be applied to some people to end their lives. I cannot in good conscience vote in favour after being exposed to (some of) the reality of what the treatment of disabled people within our health and court systems can look like.

I recognise that the UK Bill is more restrictive in scope than equivalent systems in Canada and some nations. But the safeguards in the Bill are not (in my view) well-designed or practical. Under its provisions, if a second doctor did not share the view of the first then that second doctor could be replaced. The Bill also requires High Court approval, but the High Court is already seriously over-stretched and cases are beset by delays.

I have also listened to medical professionals who have stressed the difficulty of assessing end-of-life expectancy with any certainty, and of the lack of confidence that the drugs that would likely be used to end life do, in fact, result in a painless and dignified death. It weighs heavily with me to know that the proposed change is opposed by the overwhelming majority of medical professionals who work with people at the end of their lives.

There is much that can be done to improve palliative care, including by addressing the ongoing gap in hospice funding. I think that more can be done, too, to give greater protections to people of working age who are terminally ill, and I have been involved in the past in supporting the ‘Dying to Work’ campaign.

But on the issue of assisted dying, my personal view is that current prosecutorial guidelines strike a difficult, but right, balance – recognising that family members can act out of compassion, and should not face prosecution, where there is evidence that they acted accordance with the wishes of the deceased, and the experience of familis in this position should be improved.

I do respect the position of those who hold a different point of view. It is a matter of individual conscience, and I cannot, personally, vote in favour.

Yours sincerely

Laurence