MPs share their own stories as assisted dying debate continues

Debating the proposal to roll out assisted dying in the UK, Sir James Cleverly described losing his 'closest friend earlier this year' and said his opposition did not come from 'a position of ignorance'.
The Conservative former minister said he and 'the vast majority' of lawmakers were 'sympathetic with the underlying motivation of' the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, 'which is to ease suffering in others and to try and avoid suffering where possible'.
But he warned MPs not to 'sub-contract' scrutiny of the draft new law to peers, if the Bill clears the Commons after Friday's third reading debate.
Backing the proposal, Conservative MP Mark Garnier said 'the time has come where we need to end suffering where suffering can be put aside, and not try to do something which is going to be super perfect and allow too many more people to suffer in the future'.
He told MPs that his mother died after a 'huge amount of pain', following a diagnosis in 2012 of pancreatic cancer.
Sir James, who described himself as an atheist, said: 'I've had this said to me on a number of occasions, 'if you had seen someone suffering, you would agree with this Bill'.
'Well, Mr Speaker, I have seen someone suffering – my closest friend earlier this year died painfully of oesophageal cancer and I was with him in the final weeks of his life.
'So I come at this not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance.'
Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden Dame Siobhain McDonagh intervened in Sir James's speech and said: 'On Tuesday, it is the second anniversary of my sister's death.
'Three weeks prior to her death, we took her to hospital because she had a blood infection, and in spite of agreeing to allow her into intensive care to sort out that blood infection, the consultant decided that she shouldn't go because she had a brain tumour and she was going to die.
'She was going to die, but not at that moment.
'I'm sure Mr Speaker can understand that a very big row ensued. I won that row.
'She was made well, she came home and she died peacefully. What does (Sir James) think would happen in identical circumstances, if this Bill existed?'
Sir James replied: 'She asks me to speculate into a set of circumstances which are personal and painful, and I suspect she and I both know that the outcome could have been very, very different, and the moments that she had with her sister, just like the moments I had with my dear friend, those moments might have been lost.'
He had earlier said MPs 'were promised the gold-standard, a judicially underpinned set of protections and safeguards', which were removed when a committee of MPs scrutinised the Bill.
He added: 'I've also heard where people are saying, 'well, there are problems, there are still issues, there are still concerns I have', well, 'the Lords will have their work to do'.
'But I don't think it is right and none of us should think that it is right to sub-contract our job to the other place (the House of Lords).'
Mr Garnier, who is also a former minister, told the Commons he had watched 'the start of the decline for something as painful and as difficult as pancreatic cancer' after his mother's diagnosis.
'My mother wasn't frightened of dying at all,' he continued.
'My mother would talk about it and she knew that she was going to die, but she was terrified of the pain, and on many occasions she said to me and Caroline my wife, 'can we make it end?'
'And of course we couldn't, but she had very, very good care from the NHS.'
Mr Garnier later added: 'Contrary to this, I found myself two or three years ago going to the memorial service of one of my constituents who was a truly wonderful person, and she too had died of pancreatic cancer.
'But because she had been in Spain at the time – she spent quite a lot of time in Spain with her husband – she had the opportunity to go through the state-provided assisted dying programme that they do there.
'And I spoke to her widower – very briefly, but I spoke to him – and he was fascinating about it. He said it was an extraordinary, incredibly sad thing to have gone through, but it was something that made her suffering much less.'
He said he was 'yet to be persuaded' that paving the way for assisted dying was 'a bad thing to do', and added: 'The only way I can possibly end today is by going through the 'aye' lobby.'
If MPs back the Bill at third reading, it will face further scrutiny in the House of Lords at a later date.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Telegraph

39 minutes ago

• Telegraph

Your verdict on the assisted dying vote

Following a final round of debate in the House of Commons, the assisted dying Bill is set to become law. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill won the backing of 314 MPs, ensuring a majority. It will now go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny, but it is widely expected to become law. Critics argue that the numerous amendments introduced during the legislative process leave the Bill open to potential misuse or error. Supporters, however, hailed the vote as a landmark victory. However, the majority of respondents to our poll do not agree with how MPs voted. Telegraph readers reacted in droves, with many raising serious concerns about how a new law will work in practice. 'Utterly evil Bill' Elizabeth Kirkby argues that the Bill is 'deeply flawed in every way, with gaping loopholes everywhere'. She adds: 'It is just a total disgrace and truly shames our so-called 'Government'. This utterly evil Bill is nothing short of murder. I just hope against hope that the House of Lords throws this abhorrence out.' Miss Winter thinks this is 'the sickest vote in our history'. She believes that the people were 'not given a democratic vote on their right to avoid being coerced out of life'. Reader R Scully describes the Bill as a 'total mess' and expresses frustration over its lack of provisions. They remark: 'Irrespective of the arguments, this Bill contains no means as to how it should be implemented. That's just left for other people to work out. What else should we expect from this total mess of a Parliament?' Adrianne Al-Zobaiydi was once in favour of assisted dying, but that support has now waned. She argues: 'We no longer have family GPs who know all about us. Asking a judge to make a decision is ludicrous. The recent decisions seen by judges regarding immigration and asylum seekers only strengthens my argument – they are not medically equipped to do this job.' Stephen Johnston says: 'To have a psychiatrist, social worker and legal figure involved in final decisions is concerning.' Reader Russell Ellis points to a more sinister reality, suggesting: 'Soon some families may be knocking off the old to get the money.' 'Gives the terminally ill peace of mind' However, some Telegraph readers are relieved by the Bill's passing. 'As the wife of a very ill woman, I am extremely pleased to see this go through,' Michelle Thurston remarks. She continues: 'It will give my wife the option of taking the dignified way out rather than being forced into a situation where she has to go through much suffering before the end.' Reader Bill Palmer says: 'At last, something to celebrate. A victory for humanity, for secularity, for common sense, for the majority and for individual freedom of choice.' Julia Shamilton has nursed countless people near the ends of their lives. After witnessing many beg for death she is 'in agreement with this Bill'. She says: 'I had one wonderful patient who used to ask me at every visit why she was still here. It was heartbreaking to see her waste away, turning to skin and bone. All I could tell her was that her body wasn't ready, which felt like a feeble excuse.' Reader Sal Charm argues: 'The final stages of some terminal illnesses are pretty awful. Choosing to curtail that seems reasonable to me. I would not leave my dog or cat suffering at the end of life. I think I should have the same option for myself.' 'Humane decision' While Ash Delacroix has some reservations about the Bill in its current state, she is hopeful it will be refined over time and is grateful for a step in the right direction. Ash says: 'This is the start of giving people a choice. It is a huge relief knowing that if the pain becomes unbearable, all dignity is lost, and no drug works, there is a way to find permanent sleep. 'This is a humane decision today, albeit one that had a rough time getting through. We now need to shepherd it and ensure the legislation works properly.' Stephen Pointing comments: 'The right result. It is something the majority of the population is in favour of and has been for a considerable period of time. Well done to those MPs who stuck by their guns despite a huge amount of pressure being applied by those against the Bill.'

New Statesman​

42 minutes ago

• New Statesman​

There was a revolution in Britain this week. Didn't you notice?

Photo byThe result came in seconds before the 2.30pm deadline. In a sweltering Commons chamber, packed with far more people than you would expect on most days let alone on a Friday when MPs tend to be in their constituencies, the result was announced: by 314 votes to 291, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill had passed its third reading. While the majority for the Ayes was more than halved since the second reading in November, following bitter committee and report stages, assisted dying will now go the Lords, from whence it is highly likely to become law. It has been quite a week for social revolution, proving landmark change does not run on a linear timescale. The last big legislative shift of this nature was David Cameron's determination – in opposition to much of his own party – to legalise marriage for same-sex couples in 2013. Twelve years and four elections later, MPs' vote in favour of the assisted dying bill was the second time in a week parliamentarians chose to make fundamental changes on how the state relates to its citizens. On Tuesday, an amendment to the government's Crime and Policing Bill that would remove criminal penalties for women who terminate pregnancy beyond the legal limit of 24 weeks passed in the Commons by a majority of 242 votes. It is notable that neither of these changes are official policy of Keir Starmer's government. The assisted dying legislation has been brought through the House as a private members bill by Kim Leadbeater – much to the contention of opponents dismayed (indeed, outraged) at the lack of time and to debate it. The abortion amendment was put forward by Labour backbencher Tonia Antoniazzi (who is also, as it happens, a co-sponsor to Leadbeater's bill). Both were free votes, as matters of conscience are according to parliamentary convention. As Dr Kieran Mullan put it in his closing remarks for the opposition, on this issue of life and death MPs did not even have the line from the whips to advise their decision. They had to make up their own minds, with only their consciences – and a wealth of contradictory expert advice, personal stories and harrowing experiences – to guide them. Almost six decades ago, parliament was gripped by an even fiercer frenzy of social change. It is well-known that the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the legalisation of abortion occurred as part of the 'permissive society' reforms of Harold Wilson's 1966-70 government, which also included the relaxation of divorce law and the effective abolishing of the death penalty. In fact, they occurred not only in the same year, but the same month: July 1967. On a single day – Thursday 13 July – visitors to the public galleries of parliament would have been able to watch either MPs heatedly debating the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill for its report stage and third reading, or the Sexual Offences Bill passing its second reading in the House of Lords. Both of these reforms were spearheaded not by Wilson's government directly, but by individuals in the Commons and the Lords. The abortion legislation was a private members' bill by Liberal MP David Steel who has discussed the comparisons – and differences – with the current assisted dying bill. Decriminalising homosexuality was championed by Lord Arran, whose late brother was gay, then given parliamentary time by the government. (Lord Arran's other passion project was the protection of badgers. When asked why his efforts on badgers had failed to garner as much support as his crusade for the rights of homosexuals, he replied: 'Not many badgers in the House of Lords.') Both were also highly contentious, with public opinion deeply divided. 'I cannot stand homosexuals… Prison is much too good a place for them' was the view of the Earl of Dudley during a 1966 Lords debate on the subject. A 1965 Daily Mail poll found that, while 63 per cent of people did not think private homosexual acts between consenting adults should be a criminal offence, 93 per cent believed those involved required medical or psychiatric treatment. Attitudes to abortion depended on the justification, with support on health grounds or in the case of rape, but far more mixed views regarding financial reasons or the issue of personal choice. Outside of a very fringe minority, the idea of either of these progressive reforms being reversed today is unthinkable. Fast-forwarding four and a half decades, parliament again found itself progressing ahead of public opinion. In 2011 when David Cameron first intervened to ensure gay marriage was introduced within his first term as Prime Minister, just 43 per cent of the public supported it. By the time of the vote itself – a process critics regarded as 'undemocratic' as it had not been in the Conservative manifesto and relied on votes from the Labour and Liberal Democrat benches – that had risen to 54 per cent. Now, only a tiny minority oppose it. There currently are 75 LGBT MPs in parliament, across five parties, many of whom are married to their partners thanks for Cameron's reforms. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe In contrast, assisted dying has wider public support than it does in parliament: as was cited Friday's debate, 75 per cent of people support the principle of the terminally ill being able to choose to end their suffering, while 73 per cent support the actual bill. Parliament is in catch-up mode, which is no doubt one reason MPs have backed the move, despite serious concerns remaining about its impact. Of course, it is not the job of MPs to simply parrot public opinion. They are sent to parliament to represent their constituents by considering factors – legal, medical, societal – that those who elect them are freed from thinking about. This responsibility was the focus of Friday's debate, as MP after MP – from all corners of the Chamber – stood up to warn about potential unintended consequences. 'As parliamentarians, today we have to cast quite possibly one of the most consequential votes of our time in this place,' Liberal Democrat Munira Wilson cautioned the House. Conservative Tom Tugendhat called it 'a transformation in the way in which power lies', while Labour's Chi Onwurah echoed the words of many of her colleagues when she told the chamber: 'This is not your average bill. It fundamentally changes the relationship between state and citizen.' There were many more speeches opposing specific aspects of the bill: the insufficiency of safeguards; the potential for coercion; the risks to disabled people, those suffering with mental health conditions such as anorexia, and victims of domestic abuse; medical complications regarding the process itself; the concerns of professional bodies of doctors and psychiatrists; and issue of substandard palliative care – not to mention criticism of the committee and report stages and the lack of time to debate amendments. The link to the abortion vote of Tuesday was made both implicitly and directly. Lib Dem Sarah Olney talked of the 'settled consensus' on abortion provision since David Steel's bill, unchanged for 58 years until Tuesday, because of the work that had gone into it before the parliamentary stages to ensure a stable foundation. Labour's Jen Craft talked of being immediately offered a termination when medical professional discovered her unborn daughter would have Down Syndrome, warning 'We cannot legislate against discrimination'. This is not the first time parliament has considered shifting perspectives on how to value human life. It is not even the first time this week. On the other side came equally passionate arguments: on a status quo that is 'cruel' and 'unacceptable', beset with 'profound injustices'; on compassion, humanity, choice, and pain relief; on alleviating suffering and attempting to shorten death as opposed to shortening life, as the Roman philosopher Seneca would have put it. But anyone watching could not fail to notice that the pro speeches were significantly outnumbered – surprising, given the end result. Perhaps, with the numbers anticipated to come down on the side of passing the legislation, those against felt an even fiercer moral duty to get their objections on record at this final moment. One voice notably absent from the debate was that of the Prime Minister himself. A long-standing personal supporter of assisted dying, Keir Starmer has chosen to keep this process at arms-length throughout its passage. There were doubts as to whether he would even turn up on Friday. (He was in Canada for the G7 on Tuesday for the abortion vote – an absence that has fuelled criticism of a Prime Minister too detached to lead.) In the end, he made the journey from Downing Street to the Palace of Westminster, pausing his contemplation of the UK's response if the US decides to attack Iran in Downing Street to watch the closing speeches and walk through the Aye lobby. Moments beforehand, health minister Stephen Kinnock had closed the debate by assuring the House that 'should it be the will of Parliament for this legislation to pass, the government will ensure the safe, effective implementation of this service' – a promise that threw into stark relief the government's determination not to involve itself with this legislation. Kinnock was following Kieran Mullan summing up for the opposition benches, who had criticised the government for not providing more time on the floor of the House for such an important issue. When the history books cover Starmer's time in office, it is highly likely that assisted dying and the change it represents will be the cornerstone of his legacy. The consequences of this legislation are more far-reaching than Cameron's push for marriage equality – more significant, even, than the 1967 reforms to abortion and gay rights. We have examples from around the world of how assisting dying provision can expand; while Britain is behind some other countries on the trajectory, we have little way of anticipating the full consequences of this shift. In 2013, critics of same-sex marriage argued it was an assault on the family that would irreparably damage the foundations of society. For most people in the UK today, the objections from scarcely over a decade ago look patently ridiculous. But opinion polls can only tell us so much, and trends can go in more than one direction. Stark warnings were raised in the Commons on Friday – warnings that could well transpire to be Cassandra-like prophecies without the right legal, medical and societal frameworks. Failure in this regard will be considered – rightly – a failure of the Starmer government. Whether he intended it or not, this could end up being the defining week of Starmer's tenure as Prime Minister. [See more: Ed Miliband keeps winning] Related

South Wales Argus

an hour ago

• South Wales Argus

Assisted dying: All you need to know following the crunch Commons vote

Here, the PA news agency takes a look at the Bill and what happens next after a significant moment in its journey to become law. – What is in the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill? The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has since been amended by a committee (Stefan Rousseau/PA) The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death. This would be subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. The terminally ill person would take an approved substance, provided by a doctor but administered only by the person themselves. On Friday, MPs voted 314 to 291, majority 23, in favour of legalising assisted dying as they completed the mainstay of their work on the Bill. It will now face further debate in the House of Lords. – When would assisted dying be available if the Bill became law? Kim Leadbeater is the MP behind the Bill (Jordan Pettitt/PA) The implementation period has been doubled to a maximum of four years from royal assent, the point it is rubber stamped into law, rather than the initially suggested two years. If the Bill was to pass later this year that would mean it might not be until 2029, potentially coinciding with the end of this Government's parliament, that assisted dying was being offered. Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who is the parliamentarian behind the Bill and put forward the extended timeframe, has insisted it is 'a backstop' rather than a target, as she pledged to 'hold the Government's feet to the fire' on implementing legislation should the Bill pass. The extended implementation period was one of a number of changes made since the Bill was first introduced to the Commons back in October. – What other changes have there been? A High Court safeguard was scrapped during the committee process (Alamy/PA) On Friday, MPs bolstered the Bill so people with eating disorders are ruled out of falling into its scope. Another amendment, requiring ministers to report within a year of the Bill passing on how assisted dying could affect palliative care, was also approved by MPs. Previously, a High Court safeguard was dropped, with the oversight of judges in the assisted dying process replaced with expert panels. The change was much criticised by opponents, who said it weakened the Bill, but Ms Leadbeater has argued it strengthens it. At the end of a weeks-long committee process earlier this year to amend the Bill, Ms Leadbeater said rather than removing judges from the process, 'we are adding the expertise and experience of psychiatrists and social workers to provide extra protections in the areas of assessing mental capacity and detecting coercion while retaining judicial oversight'. Changes were also made to ensure the establishment of independent advocates to support people with learning disabilities, autism or mental health conditions and to set up a disability advisory board to advise on legal implementation and impact on disabled people. Amendments added earlier this month during report stage in the Commons will also see assisted dying adverts banned if the Bill becomes law, and a prohibition on medics being able to speak to under-18s about assisted dying. – Do we know much more about the potential impact of such a service coming in? A Government impact assessment, published earlier this month, estimated that between 164 and 647 assisted deaths could potentially take place in the first year of the service, rising to between 1,042 and 4,559 in year 10. The establishment of a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner and three-member expert panels would cost an estimated average of between £10.9 million and £13.6 million per year, the document said. It had 'not been possible' to estimate the overall implementation costs at this stage of the process, it added. While noting that cutting end-of-life care costs 'is not stated as an objective of the policy', the assessment estimated that such costs could be reduced by as much as an estimated £10 million in the first year and almost £60 million after 10 years. – Do healthcare staff have to take part in assisted dying? Doctors will not have to take part in assisted dying (Lynne Cameron/PA) It was already the case that doctors would not have to take part, but MPs have since voted to insert a new clause into the Bill extending that to anyone. The wording means 'no person', including social care workers and pharmacists, is obliged to take part in assisted dying and can now opt out. Amendments to the Bill were debated on care homes and hospices also being able to opt out but these were not voted on. Ms Leadbeater has previously said there is nothing in the Bill to say they have to, nor is there anything to say they do not have to, adding on the Parliament Matters podcast that this is 'the best position to be in' and that nobody should be 'dictating to hospices what they do and don't do around assisted dying'. – What will happen next? MPs debated the Bill in the House of Commons (Malcolm Croft/PA) Friday's vote in the Commons makes it more likely for the assisted dying Bill to become law, now that it has the backing of a majority of MPs. But this is not guaranteed, and first it must continue on a journey through Parliament. The Bill now heads to the House of Lords, as both Houses of Parliament must agree its final text before it can be signed into law. During the next stages, peers are expected to put forward amendments to the Bill. If the Commons disagrees with these amendments, this will spark a process known as 'ping pong' which will continue until both Houses agree over its text. – Will the Bill definitely become law? There is a risk that the Bill could be stuck in a deadlock between the House of Commons and House of Lords, as it goes back and forth in disagreement. If this continues until the current session of Parliament ends, then the Bill would fall. Ms Leadbeater told journalists on Friday she hoped there were no attempts to purposefully wreck it by peers. 'I really hope there are no funny games, because the process has been extremely fair,' she said. The Spen Valley MP said she did not know when the current parliamentary session would end, but suggested it could stretch into late 2025, giving her Bill the best part of six months to complete the full parliamentary process. Speaking about the end of the session to reporters, Ms Leadbeater said: 'I am not imagining that is going to be imminently, but it could be before the end of the year.' One member of the House of Lords, Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally, has already indicated she is against it. The Church of England bishop said peers 'must oppose' the assisted dying Bill when it reaches them because of the 'mounting evidence that it is unworkable and unsafe'. – What about assisted dying in the rest of the UK and Crown Dependencies? The Isle of Man's parliament took its final vote in favour of assisted dying in March (Alamy/PA) The Isle of Man looks likely to become the first part of the British Isles to legalise assisted dying, after its proposed legislation passed through a final vote of the parliament's upper chamber in March. In what was hailed a 'landmark moment', members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) in May voted in favour of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, backing its general principles. It will now go forward for further scrutiny and amendments but will become law only if MSPs approve it in a final vote, which should take place later this year. Any move to legalise assisted dying in Northern Ireland would have to be passed by politicians in the devolved Assembly at Stormont. Jersey's parliament is expected to debate a draft law for an assisted dying service on the island for terminally ill people later this year. With a likely 18-month implementation period if a law is approved, the earliest it could come into effect would be summer 2027.