By Isle of Wight Observer
On Wednesday a new bill was introduced to the House of Commons which aims to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. MPs will first vote on the proposals on November 29.
Although details have not yet been published, the full title of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill says that it would “allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life”. It is expected to apply only to adults who are mentally competent and who are expected to have less than six months to live.
If a majority of MPs support the bill next month, it will be examined line by line through various stages with further votes in the Commons, before it goes to the House of Lords where it will face similar scrutiny.
Traditionally, MPs are given a free vote on such matters, meaning they vote according to their personal beliefs and conscience rather than party lines. The last time assisted dying was debated by MPs was in 2015, when the proposal was defeated.
This is a highly emotive topic, with strong views held on both sides. The IW Observer is grateful to the Island’s two MPs for sharing their thoughtful perspectives on this difficult subject.
We’d love to hear your thoughts on this issue. Please share your views by emailing us at WightVoices@iwobserver.co.uk, or join the conversation on our Facebook page. You can also write to us at 104 St James’ Square, Newport, PO30 1UR.
Joe Robertson – Isle of Wight East MP
On November 29, MPs will be asked to debate and vote on altering the law around assisted dying. It is several years since this issue has been brought before MPs and it feels like the appropriate time to revisit the question, particularly considering that there have been some high-profile national campaigns, including one led by Esther Rantzen. I am pleased that the main political parties have indicated that MPs will have a free vote. It is very obviously an issue of conscience, both complex and emotive, and the vote should not be whipped, one way or the other.
In short, I have not made a firm decision about how I will vote. It will depend on the precise wording of the Bill brought before Parliament.
I come from a starting position of caution. Any unintended consequences of well-meaning but badly drafted law would be horrific. However, just because some other countries have made bad decisions, or a minority of campaigners want more drastic law change, it should not discourage a respectful debate about small changes which aim to do one thing – relieve severe suffering when death is inevitable.
Broadly speaking, the type of suffering that any law change should seek to address is the result of advances in medical science which keeps someone alive for longer but is unable to do so without leaving them in severe pain and they do not want to continue to live in that way.
For me, the question in issue is therefore this: should the law recognise that there are some unintended consequences of some medial advancements that mean some people are being caused undue suffering by being kept alive against their wishes and in severe pain? If they make an unambiguous, informed decision to end their life in these circumstances, should there be criminal consequences for assisting them in doing so?
I am only likely to support a proposal that is carefully worded and cautious. It must be clearly and unequivocally restricted to providing assistance and with extensive safeguards (such as independent medical professional opinion with judicial oversight). If the wording is too loose, vague or open to interpretation, I will vote against it.
Richard Quigley – Isle of Wight West MP
Death and taxes, as the saying goes, are the only certainties in this life. For most of us, death, and how it greets us, remains an unknown. For some it’s considered a taboo subject, brushed under the carpet, not deemed appropriate to talk about, perhaps with the exception of those light-hearted funeral care ads (more and more of which I seem to get popping-up as targeted ads). For others it’s an open topic for debate. We’re all different, as is the way we approach our final act. But as absolute as death is, it’s still full of complexities – literal, logistical, and moral – right to the end. The Assisted Dying Bill will be no different.
The bill was formally introduced to the House (of Commons) on Wednesday, by my parliamentary colleague, Kim Leadbeater MP. Kim, and many others, want to legalise assisted dying for those who are terminally ill. It’s got a lot of support. And it’s getting (rightly) a lot of publicity.
The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, is himself in favour of assisted dying. But he’s acknowledged how complex the issue is and he’s allowing Labour colleagues to have a free vote. So, MPs can listen, debate, and decide how to vote on the arguments and evidence put forward later this year. I suspect many are likely to be weighing it up right until the moment the division bell tolls.
There’s no escaping it’s an emotive and controversial topic. One of the leading campaign slogans against it is simply ‘Kill the Bill, not the ill’. Short and effective, because it’s so emotive. But this issue is too important to be rushed through. It was last debated nearly a decade ago. And it shouldn’t be about who has the loudest voice or biggest platform – regardless of which side you fall down on. It should be about putting protections in place for the most vulnerable in society.
I trust colleagues in parliament when they say it is only for those who are terminally ill, and safeguarding is paramount. But as lawmakers, we need to consider the evidence and examples from elsewhere. Our Canadian cousins, for example, proposed a similar law change, which, too, was originally just for the terminally ill. It’s since been expanded to allow those who are not terminally ill.
Reading this you may have no idea what my position is and wonder which way I’ll vote. As it stands, I’m not in favour of this Bill. And I cannot support it with good conscience.
If the Bill does go through, and there’s a fair chance it will, then it’s a sign attitudes are changing. But it will also mean death will become far less abstract, and the complexities will be less around philosophical or theological discussion. Instead, MPs will face the very real complexities of needing to find a safe and practicable system which not only protects those being assisted, but protects those who want to live, and takes account of those who are left with it on their conscience.
