Newspaper Column – The Cornishman – 23/06/25
MPs handled the complex and challenging issues of Kim Leadbeater MP’s Private Member’s ‘Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill’ with sensitivity last Friday. The final debate ended with a prolonged ‘pin-drop’ moment. 600+ MPs frozen in silence.
314 for: 291 against. There was none of the customary triumphalism, anger or derision. MPs collectively comprehended the weight of the decision taken.
Behind the scenes – crucially out of sight from a media anxious only for lurid headlines – many MPs remained tearfully quiet. Those who voted in opposite lobbies silently embraced. Shared respect. The House of Commons at its best.
I’ve consistently made clear my support for legislation to permit the terminally ill the right to decide, at the very end-of-life, how and when they leave us, and to protect them from avoidable suffering and indignity. Though this would NOT mean that, at the same time, there should be any let-up in efforts to promote the very best palliative treatment and end-of-life care.
Some MPs adopted what I described as “fence-sitting sophistry”; asserting they were NOT OPPOSED IN PRINCIPLE, just that they felt this Bill was defectively drafted. However, few explained how they’d improve it. All legislation must be a compromise between the perfect and the expedient. This Bill achieved a sensible and workable compromise.
I hope the following explanations help address some of the key questions raised:
- “Disabled people will be forced into a ‘duty to die’”
Regrettably, there’s been an unscrupulous campaign to falsely alarm disabled people; asserting they’d be perceived as a burden, with assisted dying the implied solution! However, this legislation is about terminally ill adults who’re within weeks or months of death. Ability/disability is not relevant.
- “Vulnerable people would be coerced”
Applicants would have to persuade a panel of specialist professionals; well placed to investigate the real intentions and pressures behind any application. Before that, applicants would first need to persuade two registered doctors, independent of each other, that they are of sound and independent mind, and are only weeks from death and not under duress.
- “People with anorexia could opt for assisted death”.
The legislation only applies to INCURABLE terminal conditions. If an applicant has a curable illness – such as an eating disorder – permission would not be granted. Any doctor who backed such cases would run a high risk of being struck off.
- “It will weaken pressure for better palliative care”.
There’s no such binary choice. My Commons health committee will hold an imminent Palliative care Inquiry. Government commitments to improve palliative care remain unaffected. We should also note, even the very best palliative care in many circumstances remains insufficient to fully relieve pain and trauma.
- “Health workers who refuse to cooperate would be sanctioned”
Personal ethical or religious views will be respected. Health workers choice to or not to take part in assisted dying procedures would not affect employment/career prospects.