For all the public discourse about Assisted Dying, Parliament has rarely debated the subject. In fact, in the last two years it’s been debated in depth only twice by MPs. I remember this well because on the first of those occasions, on July 4th 2022, I was the Minister who responded on behalf of the then Conservative Government.
I responded to that debate as a Criminal Justice Minister - specifically, as the Minister responsible for Criminal Law. This is not insignificant. For all the breadth of entirely understandable subject matter debated in relation to Assisted Dying – from experience in other nations, to palliative care – the Bill before us on 29th November concerns a relatively narrow matter of Criminal Law. Namely, whether it should be a crime punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment to assist someone in taking their own life, as currently stated in Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961.
Of course, for all that one might state that the Bill is ‘narrow’ in the sense of the legislative provisions it would seek to overturn, I entirely accept that the ramifications of such a change are potentially vast. I am more than aware of the strength of feeling on this matter, which is why I held a public debate in Sudbury Town Hall on 25th October, to give my constituents the chance to have their say.
There were powerful points on both sides, but I must say I found it particularly moving to have constituents bravely speaking up who had just months to live – and asking for the right to end their life, if the pain became unbearable, and beyond what any palliative care could do to ease their suffering.
In September 2015 I voted against the last Private Members’ Bill on Assisted Dying, from Rob Marris MP. Whilst I said in the Sudbury debate that in principle, I ultimately supported the right – in exceptional circumstances – to choose to end one’s life, I was also clear that there had to be strong safeguards in place. When Rob Marris spoke in the House of Commons debate, I was not convinced that his arguments on safeguards had been robustly thought through.
Whereas, with the new proposed Bill, it’s clear that the architect – Kim Leadbeater MP – has given a lot of thought to this point. Nobody on either side wants to see any new right to assisted dying abused, and that’s why the Bill ensures that acting nefariously in such a respect would be a crime punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
But whilst I am clear that to pressure someone into assisted dying, or to act nefariously in this area must be dealt with by the criminal courts, I am now of the view that it should not be a crime to assist in ending suffering through assisted dying in exceptional circumstances for compassionate reasons - given the stronger safeguards now in place.
To explain, let us imagine a hypothetical scenario: namely, a member of our World War Two Special Operations Executive (SOE), dropped behind enemy lines and captured. They are being horrifically tortured by the Gestapo – indeed, being tortured to death.
The resistance cannot rescue this brave soul from their Gestapo cell. But they can smuggle in a cyanide pill for the captive to bite down on and end their suffering.
As the SOE commander back in Britain, what order would one give, to supply the pill or not? To me, there is only one answer: the humane one - to end the pain.
Now, some may say this is an exceptional example, only applicable in wartime. But to agree is surely to recognise that there are circumstances where taking life to end suffering is justified. If so, why should that same principle not apply to the more likely modern-day scenario of someone suffering from unbearable pain at the hands of a terrible disease, which no palliative care can comfort them from? I ask myself – who am I, as a Parliamentarian, to vote to deny that right, in very exceptional circumstances?
Some will say that we will not have had enough time to debate this highly contentious matter. Respectfully, many saying that will never change their views, even if we debated for a decade. As the Minister responding to that previous debate, like the current administration I stressed that the Government was ‘neutral’ and that this issue should be decided by a Private Member’s Bill - we can hardly complain if Private Member’s Bill procedure now applies.
I have taken my time to decide, but I will be voting in favour.
Published in the Suffolk Free Press.
