Serious concerns remain over Assisted Dying Bill – its supporters cannot ignore them

The Assisted Dying Bill is expected to be re-introduced in this Parliamentary session, and I will once again oppose it. 

This is one of the most difficult and sensitive issues Parliament can consider, with compassionate and considered arguments on both sides. I have listened carefully to constituents, met campaign groups and medical professionals, and examined the legislation in detail.

Many of the significant questions and concerns raised during the Bill’s passage last time remain unanswered — especially when it comes to protecting vulnerable people.

Under the proposed law, an adult with a terminal illness would need to be diagnosed with six months or less to live. 

But what if the doctor gets the life expectancy wrong? 

What if the medical professional has a casual or even favourable attitude towards assisted dying? 

The person with the terminal illness would also have to make a “free choice” with no coercion. 

But what if they make a choice because they feel like a burden on their families, carers, or society?

Or what if they are trying to spare their family emotional or financial strain? 

These pressures can be subtle and almost impossible to prove. 

There were also significant concerns about the way the legislation was scrutinised last time round. 

The House of Commons had limited time to examine a Bill that would have brought about one of the most profound changes to our legal and medical system in decades. 

The Committee Stage was also heavily weighted in favour of supporters of the legislation.

Some campaign groups claim that the House of Lords somehow blocked the Bill. That’s not true. The Lords were carrying out their constitutional duty by scrutinising legislation with far-reaching consequences. Given the scale of the proposed change, anything less would have been irresponsible.

The many serious questions have not gone away. Supporters cannot just ignore them and try and push through the same Bill in the hope of a different outcome. 

I do not want anyone to suffer needlessly. But when a proposal carries irreversible consequences, Parliament has a duty to proceed with the utmost caution.

That’s why I remain opposed to assisted dying legislation. 

I set out my reasons for opposing the Bill during its previous passage in Parliament. You can watch the video here.