Statement on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Second Reading

I write to update you following the day’s events on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

I voted to progress the Bill into its next stages and continue the debate. The bill has not been passed into law.

Throughout this process I have strived to have an open mind on this extremely difficult issue and am proud that I entered the chamber informed, but open minded.  I do not have an ideological view for or against Assisted Dying and I have sought to hear, understand, and learn from all the perspectives of both constituents and experts.

The stories and testimonies of constituents have been at the heart of my deliberations, and I am so grateful for the manner in which everyone has engaged with each other on this difficult subject. This includes an incredibly powerful and important open meeting on Tuesday, which showed me how this debate can be conducted with great respect for differing views.

I would like to take you through some of my journey in deliberating on this.

During this process, I have had reservations and had been inclined to vote against the Bill. However, through in-depth study and consultation I was able to reassure myself that the Bill is sufficiently narrow to allay some of these concerns, and that others can be addressed through amendments between the second and third reading of this Bill.

Following these deliberations and reading further constituent messages, I entered the Chamber with an openness to changing my thinking as a result of the debate, wishing to assure myself that a decision today would not be final, and that the Bill if progressed could be improved, or indeed voted against.

During today’s debate, two contributions stood out to me most.

First was that of my colleague Dr Peter Prinsley MP, who reflected on his personal journey as a doctor, from thinking early in his career that it was against his oath to ever take life, to seeing the terrible and unrelievable pain and indignity that many patients are enduring, and recognising a need to offer them the release they are asking for.

Peter’s descriptions of patients dying in horrendous ways resonated with constituents’ stories of loved ones who were forced to starve themselves to death during the painful last stages of their lives, for lack of any alternative and in circumstances where palliative care is simply incapable of relieving their suffering.

This continues to happen, right now. It is not something I can turn away from, and addressing this continuing harm is, in my mind, the strongest reason to progress this Bill. As Peter put it, consideration of the Bill is about finding a way to shorten death, not life, for his patients. “Not life or death, but death or death.”

Second was that of my colleague Marie Tidball MP, who reflected on her many years as a campaigner for the right of disabled people, like her, to live full and flourishing lives. Marie told us about how her view had changed in the past weeks as a result of her personal reflection and engagement with the evidence and the stories shared with her by constituents. She told us about being in intolerable pain due to surgery during her childhood, during which she told her parents she wanted to die. In Marie’s view, if the Bill was giving a choice to die to people in that situation, she would not vote for it. But instead, because it is solely restricted to terminally ill people, she sees this in terms of giving dignity and respect through control over the process and timing of death itself - the form of control over themselves that disabled people are so often denied.

Marie’s reflections assuaged me of fundamental concerns about the impact on disabled people, but equally emphasised the importance of information about how safeguards will work. This is information that I need to see before the next reading of the Bill.

When I stood to be your representative, I said I would answer questions using a simple logic: can we do it, should we do it, and is it the right thing to do? One question I cannot begin to answer, even after today’s debate is: can we do this?

It is clear that we need more palliative care, and this has been hammered home by discussions I have had with professionals and carers. We also need to ensure ethnic minority engagement with palliative care and address the concerns that prevent some people and communities from accessing care that already exists and may be able to alleviate their suffering. I do not think this Bill will make palliative care any less accessible, but I do think the Bill has brought this to the fore and shines a light on our distinct lack of palliative care in Leyton and Wanstead. This is something we need to address regardless.

However, we do need to know whether the systems this Bill would introduce are feasible. The only way to do this is to progress it to the Committee stages, which will give us a clearer idea of what this Bill will mean in practice, and allow all of us to take a more informed view at Third Reading.

I therefore voted for the Bill at the initial stage today, in order to continue to test these questions and seek answers. I will continue to listen to all views and share my thinking within this very difficult debate. I will take the same approach at the next reading of the Bill.

Please do not underestimate how difficult this process has been for me and my colleagues. This has been an exhausting process, but we will continue to our engagement and will enter the next debate more informed, but equally open minded.

Thank you again to all constituents who have been in touch and participated in this debate with me.