Discussing assisted dying

In recent weeks I have held events in Todmorden and Brighouse to discuss the assisted dying bill, also known as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. If made law, it would allow terminally ill adults likely to die within six months the right to request an assisted death.

It is a Private Members Bill, which differs from a government bill in several ways. They can be introduced by backbench MPs from any party, and the number of days Parliament can debate them is limited. The Government holds no official position on the assisted dying bill, so it is not subject to what is known as a “party whip”. There is no clear divide between political parties on this issue.

If you had asked me in the past if I were in favour of the principle of assisted dying, I would probably have said yes. Instinctively I saw it as a matter of personal choice. However, my professional career taught me the importance of decision-making beyond instinct. Coercive control and financial abuse are real concerns, particularly when people are vulnerable.

At the time of Second Reading I was not convinced the safeguards were strong enough, so I abstained. Whilst I could not vote in favour, I felt it would be valuable for the bill to progress to Committee stage and be examined by a cross-party group of MPs. It has just completed that process. The next reading has been postponed until May 16th to allow more time for MPs to consider amendments to the bill at Committee stage, and to see the new version of the bill as a result of those changes.

Dr Rachel Sheils, Medical Director of Overgate Hospice, speaking at the assisted dying discussion event in Todmorden

At both events in Calder Valley we were lucky to be joined by an expert panel with huge experience in end-of-life care and ethics, and local representatives of faith and no faith. They shared useful background on care within the current law including where it happens, how patients may feel at that time, and what is possible to relieve suffering. We also explored direct and indirect coercion, where a person might choose an assisted death because they fear being a burden on carers. The panel also discussed how humans take decisions, driven by both reason and emotion.

Members of the audience at both events raised concerns about safeguarding people at a vulnerable point. People of faith expressed their belief that human life is sacred. Others shared the view that our lives belong to us as individuals; a ‘kind’ death should be available to all; and permission does not create obligation. Audience members spoke movingly about family members who had died from conditions ranging from cancer to motor neurone disease.

I am grateful so many people gave up their time on a Thursday night to discuss a sensitive and emotive topic, with much respect shown for differing views. Politicians see a lot of commentary on social media where complex subjects are reduced to smallest number of words. It is easy for views become polarised.

At the next reading I will vote on the bill as written. My main concerns will be safeguarding the vulnerable and how workable it would be in practical terms. There is still time to share your views, you can contact me via [email protected]

This is a contributed party political press release. This website and its associated newspapers support no political party and it does not necessarily reflect our views. We consider contributed releases from all lawful parties as part of the vibrant debate in the run-up to the election and would encourage all candidates to use this platform to positively explain their vision and policies for their local communities.