Assisted Dying Bill is about protecting the rights of the terminally ill

The debate on the second reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has loomed large over the past few weeks as one of the most important moments in my parliamentary career to date. Previous attempts to get assisted dying on the statute book have failed.

As a co-sponsor of the Bill, I have felt, like others, the weight of the responsibility. I have been working with many different organisations, members across the House and, of course, my constituents. Listening has been vital in shaping my understanding. So many constituents’ stories were so harrowing that they brought me to tears.

Campaigners for 'dignity in dying' hold a demonstration outside the Houses of Parliament (Picture: Justin Tallis) | AFP via Getty Images

Thoughtful, sympathetic debate

However, there has been one thought present in my mind throughout. I cannot imagine what it must feel like to hear that there is nothing more that can be done for you.

It is bad enough to wait, wondering whether that is something you shall face – an experience I had several years ago which until recently I think I’d blocked out. I was lucky, I was told the operation was successful and it would be OK.

But if it had gone the other way, I don’t know what I would have wanted to do. What I do know with absolute certainty, is that I would have wanted the choice. Something people with a terminal diagnosis are denied in this country today.

Debating the Bill this week, many colleagues told stories of their constituents, and their family members, who had suffered the most painful, distressing, disturbing deaths. Relatives so traumatised by witnessing their loved ones die in this way that they now suffer PTSD.

As a society we do not talk enough about death, about grief, and about its effects, we agreed. The tone of the debate was, mercifully, mostly thoughtful and sympathetic on both sides. Compassion the root of arguments both for and against.

I know that nobody attending the debate did so without thinking seriously about the implications for families and society at large. I have heard the concerns. I understand them. But taking everything into account, I voted to allow the Bill to be considered further.

Dignity in death

As parliamentarians, we now have a responsibility to lead a national debate which examines the issue before all of us, dissect this Bill line by line in a Commons committee and check its effectiveness.

To try to make it so that desperate people are no longer faced with an expensive and, for some, prohibitively expensive trip to Dignitas in Switzerland as their only option. And potentially alone. It should not be that way.

This discussion, this debate, is about protecting the rights of the dying. By the cruellest of fates, they will be denied so many things their life would have offered. Surely we cannot deny them choice, and dignity in death as well.

I acknowledge that no matter how I voted on Friday, there will be those I represent who would not agree. I understand. The concerns expressed to me will be crucial in the representations I make going forward to ensure the Bill is as robust as possible.

To have opened up these discussions, to have brought the difficult conversations into the light is what I wanted to do. Now we will move towards a final decision.

Christine Jardine is Scottish Liberal Democrat MP for Edinburgh West