Below is the text of an email I have sent to my MP on Kim Leadbeater's proposed assisted dying bill:
Dear Amanda,
As far as I can remember this is the first time I have written a policy email to my MP. It feels a little bit odd to be on the writing end of the transaction and not the reading end. I say that because, in general, I've always believed policy emails to MPs do very little to influence minds, especially the ones generated from campaign websites.
It's with that in mind that I feel driven to write to you about Kim Leadbeater's Private Member's Bill on assisted dying, which having been drawn as No. 1 in the ballot, and being given sufficient parliamentary time, it is almost certain that on this occassion the proposed legislation will either pass, or fall as a result of objections.
When Kim announced that assisted dying would be the subject of her bill I was incredibly pleased. I am genuinely sympathetic to the aims of the proposed legislation. It seems abhorrent to me that a terminally ill person cannot seek help - if that is their true wish - in choosing to die a dignified death. I try to put myself in their position and know the humane choice would be to have someone: a professional or loved one help me out of my pain.
I've always believed, however, that there must be appropriate safeguards to prevent either a slippery slope situation, or the right to die becoming a duty to die.
I've listened to an awful lot of contributions in the debate and have been particularly persuaded by the reported words of Wes Streeting.
Wes is right. We should not be allowing assisted dying if palliative care is not adequate. There may well be any number of reasons for that, including funding of palliative care, but we should not legislate to allow a good death where it is possible that healthcare is failing in providing appropriate care for the ill to live a good life. Not one person should have to choose to die if there is a chance that they are doing so because the quality of their medical care is not the best available.
Similarly, and as much as I would like it not be true, it is difficult if not impossible to see how a right to die could not be influenced by a person's relatives. Whether that would be in the hopefully relatively rare cases of pressure, or in the likely much more common, situation of a sick person not wanting to be 'a burden'.
Finally, whilst the proposed legislation appears to be clear that it would apply solely to the terminally ill, we must be very mindful of that evolving into those with chronic physical conditions or the mentally ill. Whilst some advocates might argue that is desirable, it should only ever come as a result of the express will of parliament.
Of course, Kim's bill will, as a matter of conscience, be a free vote. I am certain you will deliberate on this matter a great deal, the decision to legislate to allow assisted dying will undoubtedly be the biggest matter of conscience you will vote on in your parliamentary career and will have far reaching implications. I know you won't take the decision lightly and certainly won't question your motivations whichever way you decide to vote.
But I would respectfully ask you to consider two important points:
1. Can you be certain that there are adequate safeguards to ensure no one will choose assisted dying out of necessity (whether that is failings of healthcare or pressure)?
2. May I suggest that on this occassion a private member's bill will not afford adequate scrutiny of such an important issue and would suggest that in order to provide this the legislation should be considered on government time and with a minister driving it. Whilst acknowledging that these sort of conscience issues have historically been legislated for in this manner it does seem a wholly inadequate approach for something so important.
I remain pleased that Kim has chosen to use her bill for this purpose, it is a hugely important one. I really am sympathetic but am just not certain there are adequate safeguards and, on this issue, a failure to provide them really does mean the difference between life and death.
A letter to my MP on assisted dying
Below is the text of an email I have sent to my MP on Kim Leadbeater's proposed assisted dying bill:
Dear Amanda,
As far as I can remember this is the first time I have written a policy email to my MP. It feels a little bit odd to be on the writing end of the transaction and not the reading end. I say that because, in general, I've always believed policy emails to MPs do very little to influence minds, especially the ones generated from campaign websites.
It's with that in mind that I feel driven to write to you about Kim Leadbeater's Private Member's Bill on assisted dying, which having been drawn as No. 1 in the ballot, and being given sufficient parliamentary time, it is almost certain that on this occassion the proposed legislation will either pass, or fall as a result of objections.
When Kim announced that assisted dying would be the subject of her bill I was incredibly pleased. I am genuinely sympathetic to the aims of the proposed legislation. It seems abhorrent to me that a terminally ill person cannot seek help - if that is their true wish - in choosing to die a dignified death. I try to put myself in their position and know the humane choice would be to have someone: a professional or loved one help me out of my pain.
I've always believed, however, that there must be appropriate safeguards to prevent either a slippery slope situation, or the right to die becoming a duty to die.
I've listened to an awful lot of contributions in the debate and have been particularly persuaded by the reported words of Wes Streeting.
Wes is right. We should not be allowing assisted dying if palliative care is not adequate. There may well be any number of reasons for that, including funding of palliative care, but we should not legislate to allow a good death where it is possible that healthcare is failing in providing appropriate care for the ill to live a good life. Not one person should have to choose to die if there is a chance that they are doing so because the quality of their medical care is not the best available.
Similarly, and as much as I would like it not be true, it is difficult if not impossible to see how a right to die could not be influenced by a person's relatives. Whether that would be in the hopefully relatively rare cases of pressure, or in the likely much more common, situation of a sick person not wanting to be 'a burden'.
Finally, whilst the proposed legislation appears to be clear that it would apply solely to the terminally ill, we must be very mindful of that evolving into those with chronic physical conditions or the mentally ill. Whilst some advocates might argue that is desirable, it should only ever come as a result of the express will of parliament.
Of course, Kim's bill will, as a matter of conscience, be a free vote. I am certain you will deliberate on this matter a great deal, the decision to legislate to allow assisted dying will undoubtedly be the biggest matter of conscience you will vote on in your parliamentary career and will have far reaching implications. I know you won't take the decision lightly and certainly won't question your motivations whichever way you decide to vote.
But I would respectfully ask you to consider two important points:
1. Can you be certain that there are adequate safeguards to ensure no one will choose assisted dying out of necessity (whether that is failings of healthcare or pressure)?
2. May I suggest that on this occassion a private member's bill will not afford adequate scrutiny of such an important issue and would suggest that in order to provide this the legislation should be considered on government time and with a minister driving it. Whilst acknowledging that these sort of conscience issues have historically been legislated for in this manner it does seem a wholly inadequate approach for something so important.
I remain pleased that Kim has chosen to use her bill for this purpose, it is a hugely important one. I really am sympathetic but am just not certain there are adequate safeguards and, on this issue, a failure to provide them really does mean the difference between life and death.
With warm regards...