Latest news with #EndofLife)Bill
New Statesman
an hour ago
- Politics
- 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
Western Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Health
- Western Telegraph
Assisted dying law closer but MPs' support narrows in historic vote
Kim Leadbeater described backing for her Bill in the Commons as 'a convincing majority', after the number was slashed from 55 in November to 23 on Friday. The Labour MP declared 'thank goodness' after the result, but hospices are among those warning of the 'seismic change' for end-of-life care. Staunch supporter Dame Esther Rantzen, who is terminally ill but has said a new law is unlikely to come in time for her, thanked MPs for doing their bit to protect terminally ill people from a 'bad death'. She told the PA news agency: 'This will make a huge positive difference, protecting millions of terminally ill patients and their families from the agony and loss of dignity created by a bad death. 'Thank you, Parliament.' While 314 MPs voted for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at third reading, 291 voted against. Some 14 MPs switched from voting in favour to against, while only one MP – Labour's Jack Abbott – switched from voting no to voting yes. The proposed legislation will now move to the House of Lords for further debate and votes, although one peer has already urged her colleagues they 'must oppose a law that puts the vulnerable at risk'. Labour MP Kim Leadbeater advocating for her Bill in the House of Commons (Parliament TV/PA) Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally, a former chief nursing officer for England, said instead work is needed to better fund access to 'desperately needed palliative care services'. Her sentiment was echoed by a range of end-of-life care organisations including Marie Curie, which said legalising assisted dying will make it 'more crucial than ever' for governments across the UK 'ensure that there is palliative care available for anyone who needs it'. Ahead of the vote, MPs approved a change to the Bill, which will require ministers to assess within a year of any new law coming into effect the quality and distribution of palliative care services currently available and the impact of an assisted dying service on them. The charity said while it welcomed the change, 'this will not on its own make the improvements needed to guarantee everyone is able to access the palliative care they need'. Ms Leadbeater said the vote result was one that 'so many people need', insisting her Bill has enough safeguards and will 'give dying people choice'. Asked about the narrower gap between supporters and opponents, Ms Leadbeater said she knew there would be 'some movement both ways' but insisted the vote showed a 'convincing majority'. She told reporters: 'The will of the House (of Commons) will now be respected by the Lords, and the Bill will go through to its next stage.' Campaigners in Parliament Square, central London, ahead of the vote (Yui Mok/PA) Acknowledging those who remain opposed to the Bill, she said she is 'happy to work with them to provide any reassurance or if they've got any questions about the Bill that they want to talk through with me, my door has always been open and remains open'. Conservative MP Danny Kruger, who opposes the Bill, said support 'is ebbing away very fast', telling of his disappointment the Bill passed but adding: 'The fact is, their majority's been cut in half.' Campaigners wept, jumped and hugged each other outside Parliament as the vote result was announced, while some MPs appeared visibly emotional as they left the chamber. Others lined up to shake hands with Ms Leadbeater, the Bill's sponsor through the Commons, with some, including Home Office minister Jess Phillips, stopping to hug the Spen Valley MP. Before a Bill can be signed into law, both the Lords and the Commons must agree the final text. Thanks to the four-year implementation period, it could be 2029 – potentially coinciding with the end of this Government's parliament – before assisted dying is offered. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Public support for a change in the law remains high, according to a poll (James Manning/PA) Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer remained supportive of the Bill, voting yes on Friday as he had done last year. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who had urged MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide', voted no. During an hours-long date on Friday, MPs on both sides of the issue recalled personal stories of loved ones who had died. Conservative former minister Sir James Cleverly, who led the opposition to the Bill in the Commons, spoke of a close friend who died 'painfully' from cancer. He said he comes at the divisive issue 'not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance', and was driven in his opposition by 'concerns about the practicalities' of the Bill. MPs had a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decided according to their conscience rather than along party lines. 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, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
Leader Live
4 hours ago
- Health
- Leader Live
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.' Asked what might have happened if assisted dying was an option, 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 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?'' 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.' Glasgow North East MP Maureen Burke said her brother David was aged 52 when he went to hospital with what he later learned was advanced pancreatic cancer. The Labour MP said David suffered in 'silent pain' with ever stronger painkillers before his death, and added: 'One of the last times when he still was able to speak, he called out to me from his bed and told me if there was a pill that he could take to end his life, he would very much like to take that.' The Bill would apply in England and Wales, not in Scotland where members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) are considering separate legislation, but Ms Burke said she spoke to 'ask colleagues to make sure that others don't go through' what her brother faced. If MPs back the Bill at third reading, it will face further scrutiny in the Lords at a later date.
South Wales Guardian
5 hours ago
- Health
- South Wales Guardian
Assisted dying Bill not now or never moment, says Cleverly ahead of crucial vote
The House of Commons is debating a Bill to change the law in England and Wales, ahead of a crunch afternoon vote. The outcome would lead to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill either clearing the House of Commons and moving to the Lords, or falling completely – with a warning the latter could mean the issue might not return to Westminster for a decade. The relatively narrow majority of 55 from the historic yes vote in November means every vote will count on Friday. Some MPs have already confirmed they will switch sides to oppose a Bill they describe as 'drastically weakened', after a High Court judge safeguard was scrapped and replaced with expert panels. As it stands, 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, subject to approval by two doctors and the three-member panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater has insisted the multidisciplinary panels represent a strengthening of the legislation, incorporating wider expert knowledge to assess assisted dying applications. Opening her debate, Ms Leadbeater said her Bill is 'cogent' and 'workable', with 'one simple thread running through it – the need to correct the profound injustices of the status quo and to offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it'. She pushed back on concerns raised about the Bill by some doctors and medical bodies, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych), noting: 'We have different views in this House and different people in different professions have different views.' She noted that all the royal colleges have a neutral position on assisted dying. Some members of RCPsych also wrote recently to distance themselves from the college's criticism of the Bill and pledge their support for it. MPs have a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines – although voting is not mandatory and others present on Friday could formally abstain. Ms Leadbeater warned that choosing not to support the assisted dying Bill is 'not a neutral act', but rather 'a vote for the status quo'. Repeating her warning that the issue is unlikely to be broached again for a decade if her Bill fails, she told the Commons: 'It fills me with despair to think MPs could be here in another 10 years' time hearing the same stories.' But, leading opposition to the Bill, Conservative former minister Sir James said while this is 'an important moment', there will be 'plenty of opportunities' in future for the issue to be discussed. Sir James said: 'I disagree with her (Ms Leadbeater's) assessment that it is now or never, and it is this Bill or no Bill, and that to vote against this at third reading is a vote to maintain the status quo. 'None of those things are true. There will be plenty of opportunities.' The Bill would fall if 28 MPs switched directly from voting yes to no, but only if all other MPs voted the same way as in November, including those who abstained. Ms Leadbeater this week appeared to remain confident her Bill will pass, acknowledging that while she expected 'some small movement in the middle', she did not 'anticipate that that majority would be heavily eroded'. All eyes will be on whether Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and senior colleagues continue their support for the Bill. Sir Keir indicated earlier this week that he had not changed his mind since voting yes last year, saying his 'position is long-standing and well-known'. Downing Street declined to 'speculate on the PM's movements today' when asked about his attendance at the Commons debate. Health Secretary Wes Streeting described Ms Leadbeater's work on the proposed legislation as 'extremely helpful', but confirmed in April that he still intended to vote against it. Ahead of the debate, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch urged her MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide'. A vote must be called before 2.30pm, as per parliamentary procedure. Friday's session began with considerations of outstanding amendments to the Bill, including one to prevent a person meeting the requirements for an assisted death 'solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking'. The amendment – accepted without the need for a vote – combined with existing safeguards in the Bill, would rule out people with eating disorders falling into its scope, Ms Leadbeater has said. 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. Marie Curie welcomed the amendment, but warned that 'this will not on its own make the improvements needed to guarantee everyone is able to access the palliative care they need' and urged a palliative care strategy for England 'supported by a sustainable funding settlement – which puts palliative and end of life care at the heart of NHS priorities for the coming years'. Supporters and opponents of a change in the law gathered at Westminster early on Friday, holding placards saying 'Let us choose' and 'Don't make doctors killers'. Among the high-profile supporters were Dame Prue Leith, who said she is 'quietly confident' about the outcome of the vote, and Dame Esther Rantzen's daughter Rebecca Wilcox. Opposition campaigner and disability advocate George Fielding turned out to urge parliamentarians to vote no, saying: 'What MPs are deciding on is whether they want to give people assistance to die before they have assistance to live.' A YouGov poll of 2,003 adults in Great Britain, surveyed last month and published on Thursday, suggested public support for the Bill remains at 73% – unchanged from November. The proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle has risen slightly, to 75% from 73% in November.
South Wales Guardian
5 hours ago
- Health
- South Wales Guardian
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.
