On the 11th September the second reading of Rob Marris’ Assisted Dying Bill took place in the Commons. This was not so much a matter of party politics but of conscience and as such was a free vote. The debate was conducted with respect and courtesy. I believe it portrayed Parliament in its best light.
Having survived cancer twice and knowing many people who have not, I drew on every shred of personal experience I could. I also travelled the length and breadth of Suffolk speaking to health care professionals, patients, clergy and the public. My postbag and inbox was bursting with correspondence from people across Bury St Edmunds wanting me to vote for and against the Bill.
Margaret Thatcher once said “don’t expect anyone just to sit there and agree with you, that's not their job”. With that in mind I made my choice and for me, the Bill simply raised more questions than it answered.
For example, in its last form the Bill didn’t cover people with, for example, disabilities or dementia. Their suffering may be every bit as great. Should we have extended this new right to some but not others? The bill required the patient to administer their own prescription. What if they could not? As a prerequisite in the Bill, how accurately could we predict if someone has six months to live? How would we stop “doctor shopping” if the two doctors necessary to counter-sign a patient’s wishes disagreed? Crucially for me, the Bill didn’t (indeed could not) fully protect the vulnerable from coercion or pressure.
It goes without saying that I care hugely about the terminally ill. I don’t want anybody to suffer pain. But the answer is not to introduce a bill so imperfect and open to abuse. I admit that the current laws are also imperfect, but I’d rather work with and improve them, than introduce another with as many problems. Most crucially we can and should improve palliative care and treatment.
On all sides of the debate, everybody’s goal is to end needless suffering and all would like to see the terminally ill receive the best end of life care possible. I therefore welcome the Department of Health’s End of Life Care Strategy, which aims to improve access to good quality palliative care and encourage the Government further to develop specialist and hospice provision. We are making ground.
Likewise, in Oregon, where a similar law has been in place for 21 years, nearly 80% of those who have died by ingesting medicines prescribed under the Act suffered from cancer. Just two months ago, Doctors hailed immunotherapy as “one of the greatest breakthroughs in cancer treatment in four decades”.
My point is, who knows what advances medicine will make both in preventing disease, treating it and relieving the suffering of the terminally ill? For now, that is where I want this Government to direct all its energy.