Assisted Dying

Requested to speak but was not given the floor. Suggested that the House should proceed carefully but urged for quicker action regarding assisted dying legislation, noting that public opinion is shifting and many constituents are suffering unnecessarily. Emphasised the importance of bodily autonomy and criticised the current law as unsatisfactory for those nearing death.

Suggests moving past Westminster Hall to have a meaningful debate on the Floor of the House, allowing for more public involvement in the discussion about assisted dying.

Ms Thewliss discussed the impact of assisted dying on constituents, citing personal stories and experiences that highlight the emotional burden of end-of-life care. She mentioned 236 cases raised with her since 2015, despite it being a matter for the Scottish Parliament. Ms Thewliss emphasised the importance of considering the perspectives of those left behind after losing a loved one.

Mr. Mitchell intervened, asking if the debate's supporters also prioritise increased spending on palliative care in jurisdictions that legalise assisted dying. Mr Mitchell asked for an intervention from Ms Thewliss.

He mentioned concerns about the possibility of people being pressured to end their own life. He also highlighted the importance of palliative care and expressed worries about disabled individuals feeling less valued under any changes in law.

Slaughter acknowledged the contributions of Members in discussing a very emotive issue. He mentioned that seven years ago, he wound up for the Opposition on Rob Marris's Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill. Slaughter stated that although public opinion is overwhelmingly supportive of assisted dying with over 80% approval and more than 155,000 signatures in support, Parliament needs robust safeguards against coercion and evidence of their effectiveness. He also noted the shift in medical profession opinions towards neutrality or support for assisted dying.

Argued that those supporting assisted dying want to end pain, not hasten death, and pointed out that people will have to die anyway. She emphasized the importance of allowing individuals to have a choice over their final moments, citing personal experiences with family members who struggled with terminal illness. She mentioned that 273 of her constituents had signed a petition supporting this debate.

Mr. Kruger argued against legalising assisted dying, citing concerns about the impact on healthcare costs and patient autonomy. He mentioned that introducing such a law could lead to reduced investment in palliative care and increase pressure on patients to request assistance in ending their lives early due to financial constraints. I acknowledge the trend in countries that have introduced assisted dying laws to move towards more liberalisation over time. This includes Canada where euthanasia is now being proposed as part of this progression.

The speaker expressed concern about the current status of end-of-life care and the potential failure of palliative care availability. He highlighted the need for better support in pain management, workforce challenges, and timely access to appropriate end-of-life care.

Desmond Swayne shared his personal experience with a terminally ill family member and argued against changing the law, emphasizing that polls showing support for assisted dying do not constitute an argument. He cited concerns raised by clinicians in Canada about potential budget cuts to palliative care services if assisted dying were legalized. He also noted that legalizing assisted dying could change the medical profession's role and scale significantly, with one in six deaths potentially being medically assisted in jurisdictions like Holland.

Mr. Leigh argues against assisted suicide, stating that it is not a debate about assisted dying but rather helping people to kill themselves. He cites economic pressures and the increasing burden of elderly populations on society as reasons why support for such legislation will grow over time.

Now is the time to legislate so that end of life care issues can be accommodated, especially for those with no quality of life left. Asked if those who feel under pressure to conserve inheritance or not be a burden act out of love rather than venal reasons, and noted that others might put pressure on their loved ones to stay alive due to love.

Mr Davies discussed the changing perspectives on assisted dying, referencing Frank Field's experience with an MP friend who wanted to die early due to cancer. He cited studies from Australia and the US showing low rates of assisted deaths, indicating that fears about pressure from relatives are not empirically supported. He also noted concerns about inadequate terminal care services, emphasizing that patients' wishes should be paramount and advocating for a proper debate on this issue.

Agrees with the need for reform and supports the mention of palliative care, emphasizing that supporting assisted dying does not mean opposing good-quality palliative care.

Mr Paisley discussed his personal experiences with death and the importance of having a national conversation about palliative care. He criticised the current state of hospice care in the UK, arguing that more resources should be allocated to cancer research and incurable diseases to give hope to patients. Mr Paisley also highlighted concerns raised by disability rights organisations and medical associations regarding the threat to vulnerable individuals if assisted dying were legalised.

Ms Mortimer questioned why it is not a great step to allow people who are dying horribly from treatment withdrawal to have access to modern medicine that could help them pass away peacefully. She highlighted the existing practice of DNR orders and the right for patients to choose against resuscitation, suggesting that there should be a choice for dignified death.

Asked who has the right to judge quality of life and questioned assumptions about lives worth living being only those deemed perfect or high-quality by others.

Supports Tonia Antoniazzi's representation and mentions the difficulty in discussing personal experiences related to dying. Appreciates Peter Bottomley's speech, emphasizing the impact on families when discussing end-of-life care under current laws that inhibit honest conversations. Highlights the need for supportive situations and better dialogue within families.

Suggested having an independent inquiry by the Health and Social Care Committee or otherwise to look at points on both sides of the argument. Mr Hollinrake intervened to note that drafting legislation carefully would affect the proportion of deaths through assisted dying, as seen in Oregon where it is 0.7%. Hollinrake thanked the initial speaker and noted that 74% of his constituents want a law on assisted dying. He emphasized that it is about choice, particularly in relation to fear of painful death, and cited statistics supporting public opinion.

Shared the story of her constituent Dawn Voice-Cooper, who suffered from a long-term degenerative condition and decided to end her life in Switzerland due to unbearable pain and loss of autonomy. Laura highlighted that Dawn's ability to travel was contingent on having full competence, which required financial resources that not everyone has.

Questioned whether using 'repeatedly' in previous discussions was appropriate given many current MPs were not present then. Ms Allan stressed the importance of public debate on assisted dying, highlighting that terminally ill individuals should have the option to determine their own death. She also noted the cases where assisted dying is already happening through judicial discretion and other means.

Warman expressed concern over the personal choice of assisted dying being a matter for Parliament. He referenced his family's history with various terminal illnesses and argued for autonomy in end-of-life decisions, citing support from medical organisations moving towards neutrality on this issue.

The current legislation is outdated and does not reflect modern medical ethics. We need a thorough review of assisted dying laws.

The MP thanked his constituents who signed a petition on assisted dying. He acknowledged the complexity of the issue, stating that being pro-life does not prevent dealing with death. Neale emphasized concerns about capacity, coercion, and safeguarding in decisions related to end-of-life care.

Pays tribute to the debate's introduction by highlighting personal experiences and discusses end-of-life care, particularly comparing the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands to suicide rates in the UK. He argues that legalizing euthanasia may not reduce suicides and emphasizes the importance of continued debate.

Mr Gibson opposes assisted dying, drawing from his personal experience of witnessing a family member's death and his professional encounters with terminally ill patients. He expresses concern about the potential for coercion by family members if assisted dying is legalised. Mr Gibson also highlights the importance of proper funding for hospices to ensure good deaths at home.

Ms Hopkins argues that the current ban on assisted dying results in unacceptable failings in patient safety, forcing terminally ill individuals to take matters into their own hands. She notes that only wealthy individuals can afford to travel abroad for assisted dying, highlighting an inequality in the system. Ms Hopkins also states that there is no credible evidence suggesting vulnerable people are pressured to end their lives under legalised assisted dying.

He highlighted the importance of language in discussing assisted dying, noting that 'assisted suicide' accurately reflects current law. He argued against the unintended consequences of such legislation, suggesting it could impose a moral duty on terminally ill individuals to seek an assisted death and undermine societal values.

She supported changing the law to give terminally ill people choice and control over their end-of-life decisions. She emphasized that 86% of people in California who had assisted deaths were already enrolled in hospice care.

Sally-Ann Hart highlighted the emotional and practical problems faced by doctors in jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal, citing data from Living and Dying Well that found 30% to 50% of clinicians experience an emotional burden or discomfort. She also noted issues such as diversion of resources away from palliative care services and confusion for patients about the purpose of palliative care.

Sarah Green discussed personal stories from her constituents who have sought or considered seeking assisted dying services abroad due to the UK's current ban. She highlighted cases where family members faced legal consequences for supporting a loved one's wish to die, causing additional emotional distress and uncertainty. Green argued that the law is failing those who need it most and should be re-examined.

Mr Morgan spoke about his constituent, David Denison, who was diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer and wants control over how he ends his life. He called for legislation to allow assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults.

I oppose legalising assisted dying because it would impose an awful moral dilemma on conscientious frail individuals nearing the end of their life. They feel pressured to avoid being a burden and might prematurely end their lives, even if they do not want to die early.

I share my experience of losing both parents at a young age and highlight the issue of pain relief development lagging behind survival improvements for acute episodes. This may be why many, including myself who previously voted against assisted dying measures, are now considering support for such legislation.

Ms. Hobhouse thanks campaigners like Pauline Carroll for her work on assisted dying and supports the need for a change in current law to allow mentally competent, terminally ill adults with a six-month prognosis to have access to assisted dying.