Do No Harm

Gill Furniss writes:

Next week, parliament will have its first opportunity to vote on assisted dying in almost a decade. This is a matter of conscience; it supersedes party politics and each MP is rightly given the freedom to make up their own mind.

I sympathise with many of the views expressed on both sides of this debate, which are put forward in good faith and built from a genuine desire to achieve the best outcomes for patients. While I disagree with my colleagues who have come out in support of this bill, I do not doubt for a second that they do so in accordance with their genuinely held beliefs. I sincerely hope next week sees a high-quality, respectful debate. This is no less than people deserve. After much consideration, I have decided I will be voting against the bill.

Some claim that assisted dying is an inherently progressive policy, one which all of us on the left ought to support as a matter of personal freedom. I disagree with this assessment; my opposition to assisted dying is born from my commitment as a Labour MP to protecting everyone in society.

Nobody wants to see a loved one suffering in pain during their final days and weeks. However, I disagree with campaigners who cite this as a reason to allow doctors to prematurely end someone’s life. The entire ethos behind palliative care is to ensure that those who are approaching the end can spend the time they have left in as much comfort as possible. This is where our focus ought to be instead.

My concerns about assisted dying cannot be adequately addressed through safeguards. Kim Leadbeater’s bill already contains a large number of these, and I have no doubt that more would be added during its parliamentary journey, should it pass its first stage next week.

But no amount of safeguarding can eliminate all the dilemmas that assisted dying entails. Should it pass, it would force all those with a terminal illness to make a decision on whether to end their own life prematurely, when they ought to be focusing on making the most of their final months. I worry that some people will see themselves as a burden to their loved ones who have made major sacrifices to care for them. As legislators, we may be able to regulate away external pressures on somebody to have an assisted death, but we cannot change a person’s thought process. The very fact that this option would be open to them risks people ending their lives prematurely for the wrong reason: they feel like a burden to their families; they believe they are ‘bed-blocking’; they think it would make things easier for everybody else. Of course, they would not tell doctors this is why they want an assisted death. It is not hard to imagine people ensuring they ‘say the right things’ if they want to go down this path.

These concerns are particularly pertinent for more vulnerable people. The risk of external pressure will always be present, and we cannot guarantee that everybody who asks for an assisted death is genuinely doing so out of their own free will. I became a Labour MP to stand up for the most vulnerable in society and I fear that assisted dying puts them in harm’s way.

I also worry that this bill puts us on a path to a future where more and more people opt for a medically assisted death. The situation in Canada, where a staggering one in 24 deaths is aided by doctors, ought to be a stark warning to us all. Canada legalised assisted dying in 2016. It was, at first, accompanied by a stringent set of criteria, not too dissimilar to those in the bill we will vote on next week. But before long, the eligibility was expanded and tragic stories have emerged where people have wrongly received an assisted death – for instance, for mental health problems rather than physical terminal ailments. If we open the door to assisted dying, we may find that we can never close it again. Therefore, as a Labour MP, as a left-wing politician and as a progressive, I will vote against the assisted dying bill.