Why politicians must be allowed an honest say on matter of life and death
The insistence of those in favour that allowing the terminally ill to end their lives – with the help of doctors – was the wise and compassionate thing to do was seductive: who wouldn’t wish to see the end of someone’s suffering, especially if they were begging for release?
And, of course, we can’t ignore the fact we live in the be kind era, where performative compassion counts for a lot. Arguments in favour, from some terminally ill people, have enhanced the case that supporting a change in the law is the good and decent thing to do.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdTo top all of that, we’ve heard Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer talk with pride about how he’s kept his promise to TV presenter Esther Rantzen to have the matter debated in the House of Commons.


But, although I was once convinced the introduction of assisted dying was inevitable, events of the past week have altered my view. The more those in favour of assisted dying discuss it, the less likely I think they are to succeed in changing the law.
I should make my own position clear. I was once very much in favour of assisted dying, believing it a straightforward and kind way of offering dignity in death to those in pain. While I still see the appeal of that idea, I’m now firmly opposed.
Simply, it seems to me that legalised assisted dying would be so open to abuse that it would be a danger.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdI’m far from alone in holding grave concerns about some people being coerced into ending their lives. Nor am I unique in believing governments at both Westminster and Holyrood should be doing more to improve palliative care instead of thinking about bumping off inconveniently poorly patients.


If those who wish to change the law continue speaking up in public, I don’t think I’ll have much to worry about.
Christine Jardine, the Liberal Democrat MP for Edinburgh West and a co-sponsor of Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s Bill, appeared on BBC2’s Newsnight to try to make the case for new legislation and, immediately, came excruciatingly unstuck.
Asked by host Victoria Derbyshire how anyone could know whether someone was being coerced into agreeing to an assisted death, Jardine fell apart. They were, she said, “talking about people in a heart-breaking situation” and doctors would be “trained to read if they are being open with them”.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdBut how, persisted Derbyshire, would anyone know if someone was being coerced.
Jardine was hopeful there would be questions and, anyway, if someone is terminally ill “there is a sincerity about what they say, that’s not something they can fake”.
The feeling that everything will be hunky dory does not constitute a safeguard.
Ministers have been told by Cabinet Secretary Simon Case they should not take part in the public debate on this matter on the grounds the government’s position is neutral.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThis bureaucratic guidance is, of course, unworkable. It may be possible to prevent an individual politician from speaking out in their capacity as a member of the government, but they cannot – and should not – be prevented from speaking out as constituency MPs.
UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting has exploited this grey area, declaring his opposition to assisted dying.
Streeting, like any other MP, is surely entitled to hold and express a view on this matter. His constituents can hardly be expected not to know how he intends to vote when the Bill comes to the Commons.
But Leadbeater disagrees. In an interview with The House magazine, she said that everybody was “absolutely entitled to their different views on the issue” before complaining about the expression of those views by some.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide Ad“I have found it,” she said, “disappointing that some members of the Cabinet have spoken out very vocally on the issue, and others have done as instructed and not expressed their views. So, I’ve found that quite disappointing and quite upsetting.”
Leadbeater’s response to dissenting voices is troubling. Why shouldn’t we hear the views of every MP on this profoundly important issue? Doesn’t Leadbeater think her Bill can withstand scrutiny?
The vote in the Commons on November 29 will impact England and Wales. MSPs are currently considering a bill, drafted by Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur, which would make assisted dying legal in Scotland.
Last month, in what some interpreted as a desire to wash his hands of such a controversial issue, Health Secretary Neil Gray told MSPs the legislation proposed by McArthur went beyond the limits of the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdBut if MPs back assisted dying for England and Wales, a subsequent vote at Holyrood will become inevitable.
It’s not only pro-assisted dying MPs who have undermined their cause in recent days. The organisation Humanists UK – very much in favour of assisted dying – issued the most remarkable advice to MPs now considering the contents of Leadbeater’s Bill.
The organisation recognised that “some MPs may be nervous about such a significant piece of legislation coming before them so early in their terms”, but hoped “they will realise that, if they support assisted dying in principle, but are concerned about the practicalities, they should vote in favour of it at second reading”.
I believe the opposite is true. If an MP who believes in the principle of assisted dying has concerns about how it might work practically, then it would be amoral for them to support the Bill.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdOver the past week, all we’ve heard from supporters of Leadbeater’s Bill are various versions of the platitude “it’ll all be fine”.
We should expect better from those preparing to vote on this matter of life and death.
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.