Britain is one step closer to compassionate, kind death for all

I am relieved and overjoyed by the historic vote on assisted dying in the House of Commons today. The road has been long and hard, and I am very aware that many others have been on that journey since long before I even became an MP. The question of whether to offer choice to people at the end of their lives was first raised in parliament in 1936 – almost a century ago.
Since then, terminally ill people have pleaded repeatedly with MPs to heed their simple wish to have control and autonomy at the end of their lives. A courageous few have taken their cases to the courts, even while they confronted the prospect of their own imminent and inevitable deaths. The judges said it was for parliament to decide. Now, at last, the House of Commons has responded, and responded decisively to recognise the justice of their cause.
While taking this bill through its Commons stages, I felt the burden of their anguish and that of those who are courageously and respectfully asking that their own death should be a good one, at a time of their choosing. It was for them that I and my colleagues took so much time and trouble to ensure that we put before parliament legislation that was fit for purpose while protecting everybody, but especially the most vulnerable in society, from any risk of coercion or pressure.
Undertaking that task through the private member's bill process has not been straightforward. But that is how conscience issues are decided in our democracy. In doing so I have been fortunate to benefit from the expertise of excellent and dedicated government officials, lawyers and parliamentary draughtsmen – the foot soldiers of our democracy whose contributions often go unnoticed. The government is rightly neutral, but its hard work helped give me the confidence that the bill that now goes on to the House of Lords for further consideration is the best it possibly could be.
I have also been supported by MPs across the political divides in the House of Commons and that has been a hugely rewarding experience. It proved once again that on this issue, like so many others, it is possible to work with political opponents and that, in the words of my sister, Jo Cox, 'We have far more in common … than that which divides us.'
I believe that by working together with a shared commitment not just to get this reform through, but to do it carefully, responsibly and openly, we have done the job our constituents send us to Westminster to do. When other political arguments that we have day in and day out are long forgotten, this parliament will be remembered for many years to come for the decision we have made. And it is my genuine belief that in that time the controversy over this measure will fade, just as it has in other countries that took this step long before us. And just as it has over issues that were once fiercely contested but are now accepted as sensible and fair, such as equal marriage or a woman's right to choose.
If this bill finally becomes law later this year it will still take some years to implement, although I hope that delay will be as short as possible. It will come too late for many, including some of those I have met along this journey. Their courage is extraordinary and their selflessness is remarkable. They say to me: 'I may not get the death of my choice, but if others coming later are spared the suffering and indignity of a painful death then it will be worthwhile.'
Their voices have finally been heard. The journey is not yet over but the end is in sight. I would have been heartbroken if the vote had gone the other way. Not for me and my team and all those who have worked so hard on this bill, but for those whose lives would have once more been filled with despair and trepidation.
I recall the words of Desmond Tutu almost a decade ago when he said: 'Just as I have argued firmly for compassion and fairness in life, I believe that terminally ill people should be treated with the same compassion and fairness when it comes to their deaths.' It has taken a long time – too long – for us in this country to heed those words but heed them we have, and I believe this will be remembered as a proud day for parliament and a day of hope for the future.
Kim Leadbeater is Labour MP for Spen Valley

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

BBC News

30 minutes ago

• BBC News

Petition questioning jail sentences for online posts hits target

A petition calling for an urgent review of sentencing after a woman was jailed for a racist social media post has hit its target of 100,000 signatures in under 24 Connolly, from Northampton, was jailed for 31 months in October after urging her followers on X to "set fire" to hotels housing asylum seekers on the day of the Southport UK MP Rupert Lowe's online petition said prison terms for cases of "opinion-based online speech" caused "serious public concern" and alternative sanctions would be more appeal was rejected in May, with the Court of Appeal ruling there was "no arguable basis" that her prison sentence was excessive. The 41-year-old childminder, the wife of a Conservative councillor, posted the swearword-ridden message on 29 July 2024, the day three girls were murdered at a dance class in calling for "mass deportations now", she wrote: "If that makes me racist, so be it."She urged readers to set fire to "all the hotels" that were "full" of those she wished to post had been deleted before Connolly was arrested on 6 August but had already been viewed 310,000 who represents Great Yarmouth as an Independent, said the jailing of Connolly was "morally repugnant" and his petition had the full support of her husband, Ray."Lucy, and others like her, should not be in prison for foolish things they posted on the internet," said Lowe in a post on X."It's all just so disgusting, and if I can use my elected position to do anything, it has to be worth a go." The petition says imprisoning individuals for posts on social media "sets a dangerous precedent and raises wider questions about freedom of expression, proportionality in sentencing, and the misuse of limited prison resources."The day after Connolly's appeal was rejected, Sir Keir Starmer said he was in favour of free speech and against inciting violence after Lowe used Prime Minister's Questions to ask if her jail term was an "efficient or fair" use of prison.A UK Government and Parliament petition that attains 100,000 signatures is assessed by the Petitions Committee for its level of support and whether the government could act on its demands. If approved for consideration, it is then debated in Westminster Hall. Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.

Telegraph

32 minutes ago

• Telegraph

Labour must put energy security ahead of net zero ideology

British Government ministers appear to enjoy nothing quite so much as interfering with complex systems they don't entirely understand. Research commissioned by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has highlighted one set of clearly unintended consequences that could soon come about as a result of Energy Secretary Ed Miliband's fanatical pursuit of his 2050 target. Interactions between high temperatures, solar panels, heat pumps and the transmission network may result in a greater likelihood of 'electricity shortfalls and loadshedding', a polite euphemism for controlled blackouts. The driving mechanisms are straightforward: heat pumps, soon to be mandatory in newbuilds, and highly incentivised in older properties, offer cooling capabilities that are likely to increase electricity demand during hot periods. At the same time, Britain's distributed renewables grid will be more exposed to degradation of performance due to these same high temperatures as solar panel efficiency falls and transmission networks are pushed to their limit as carrying capacities fall, increasing 'the likelihood of widespread blackouts'. It is a fascinating combination of incentives and outcomes, particularly for a department with 'energy security' in its title. It is also an excellent illustration of why we should be deeply sceptical of government schemes that seek to remake society on a grand scale: the choices to push certain approaches has created this pathway to instability. It is far from the only way in which net zero puts energy security at risk. There are the dark, windless winter days where neither solar nor wind provide significant inputs into Britain's grid, potentially leaving us reliant on backup power sources – an additional source of capital costs – or on interconnectors to European countries, which may also find their generating capacity limited. At the other end of the spectrum, a report into Spain's April blackouts has highlighted that particularly sunny days may drive prices negative, causing producers to switch off in a cascading failure. Britain does at least seem to have learnt this lesson ahead of time, taking steps to prevent a similar incident here. As the UK report has highlighted, however, it would be foolish to assume perfect foresight of future risks. It is surely time the Government put energy security ahead of net zero ideology.

Telegraph

37 minutes ago

• Telegraph

Don't trust two-tier Keir on Palestine Action. He hasn't turned sound

If a mystic with a crystal ball asked you last week to guess which political leader would try to ban a group with 'Palestine' in the name, you'd have plumped for Donald Trump. Turns out, however, it was Keir Starmer. I speak of Palestine Action, the neo-Corbynite clowns who infiltrated RAF Brize Norton on electric scooters to sabotage strategic aircraft. The Government says it will ban them as terrorists for their trouble. Has the Prime Minster finally gone sound? Has he heck. The petulant hoodlums will complain that unlike Hamas and the other groups on the list, they weren't trying to bomb anybody. That argument will probably prevail; the ban must win the support of both MPs and peers before coming into force, so it may never materialise. No, it's all about the headlines. Nigel Farage demanded that Palestine Action be proscribed in the morning and by the afternoon, Starmer had claimed the oxygen for his own. This created the impression that the Government takes our national security seriously, stands against the irritating Gaza radicals and is determined to crack down on treason. No need to vote Reform then, eh? He's a slippery fish, that prime minister. This is the most unprincipled government in living memory and its playbook is always the same. Wrongfoot and gaslight the public while advancing an agenda that nobody has voted for. Mark my words. After this, Starmer's betrayal of Israel will continue apace. Take the child sex gangs. The inquiry was a controlled explosion of a political landmine with senior Labour figures protected by spin. Meanwhile, this was Death Week, with infanticide and geronticide, neither of which were in Labour's manifesto, forced through the Commons. Thus the Government emerges as the shadowy winner while the country and its despairing people have lost. The same pattern can be seen in everything from the economy to immigration and defence. Starmer talks tough, cracks out a little U-turn, then when the heat has passed, pushes on with his agenda, making superficial modifications to throw us off the scent. Last week, for instance, it emerged that our rising defence budget will also fund Heathrow's third runway, reduce food prices and bolster supply chains. The Prime Minister told us he was serious about defending the realm, but he didn't really mean it. The Palestine Action episode is the same. This government is now the most Israelophobic since the Fifties. It has suspended arms export licences while continuing to provide them to the repressive regimes of Qatar, Turkey and Egypt. It has sanctioned objectionable Israeli ministers while leaving far more chauvinistic regional figures untouched. The Tunisian president, for example, demands 'all the land of Palestine' for the Arabs. No two-state solution there. No British sanctions, either. It has presided over crackdowns on free speech and two-tier policing of the Gaza mobs. Just as sensible voters reach the end of their tether, however, Sir Keir throws sand in their eyes on Palestine Action. Now it is the turn of his Corbynite Left to feel the burn. But this is nothing more than an exercise in damage limitation; as always, the pendulum will swing back the other way, only – crucially – not as far as its original position. Thus public rage is subdued while the Overton Window creeps inexorably leftwards. You can feel it, can't you? You know you're being conned but you can't quite put your finger on it. As the months pass, a browbeaten and confused electorate finds the country drifting away beneath its feet, little by little becoming unrecognisable.