Assisted dying has attracted for me, and no doubt many other MPs, far more mail than any other issue. The weight of this mail on either side of the argument has been pretty much the same. It has also involved more surgery discussions than any other subject, and an online meeting for my constituents, which around a hundred people participated in.
The interest and passion on both sides of the argument has been immense, but so has been the respect that all have given to this sensitive topic.
Technically the bill’s proposers and the committee have done an impressive piece of work. They included a suggestion I made that social workers also be a part of the teams that examines these cases, and for this I am grateful.
But is this enough?
As MPs, we have been given this subject to deal with on the basis of our consciences, and with much personal discussion with family, friends and professionals. I have looked into the subtleties of the arguments, and found myself drawn to personal experience to also help me find clarity.
At the end of the day just knowing that there is a bill in place, may, as has been suggested by others, be a relief. But for others, it will produce an anxiety, and a questioning over what to do as the end-of-life approaches.
Thoughts, for example, of ‘becoming a burden’ on one’s family may arise, when they donot need to.
The current state of end-of-life care cannot be described as optimal. The provision of hospices across our country is patchy at best.
Just recently I took part in a sponsored walk along with friends and colleagues, on the ‘Men’s Walk to Support’ for Dorothy House Hospice, that lies on the western edge of my constituency. Four hundred of us took part and collectively we raised around £71,000, but this amount does not even touch the sides of the need, especially after the increase in national insurance for employers is taken into account. The £100 million announced by the government for capital projects at hospices, while welcome, does not help with the everyday costs.
It has been pointed out to me that if hospices are properly supported, then much of the problem that this bill seeks to deal with goes away, and where it does not, doctors must be supported and protected when they are dealing with extreme pain, especially when its amelioration hastens the death of the patient.
I will tell the story of my own sister, who just a few days before the end of her life regained her lucidity
But this care at the bedside should not be interfered with by judicial process. It is too intimate, too pressing, too delicate.
So, what should be done with those who want to die, perhaps before their natural end comes, but out of fear for what is to come?
I will tell the story of my own sister, who just a few days before the end of her life regained her lucidity, after years of dealing with cancer. Following days of being for the most part unconscious, she called her two young sons to her bedside and told them not to be afraid, but to be strong, and to do the right things in their lives, and that she would always be looking over them.
Such moments are priceless and would potentially be denied if this bill was passed. People are surprising. Life, and indeed death, is hard. But it does not mean we should, even if we could, escape from these situations, which are all different and subject to the individuals and families involved.
Making the decision to approve this bill would introduce a huge grey area to the end of life, which we will all one day have to face. Life is too precious. For the sake of the many and having voted for the bill to go through to its committee stage, I now, at the third reading, and after much thought, will be voting against it.
Comments