Many constituents have contacted me about assisted dying.

This is a very sensitive issue and there are strongly held ethical and moral views on both sides of the debate. Successive governments, of both parties, have taken the view that the law on assisted dying is a matter of conscience for individual MPs, and the Prime Minister has confirmed that any change in the law will not happen as a result of a Government Bill. In other words, a change can only be made via a Private Members’ Bill (PMB).

Kim Leadbeater MP is bringing forward such a Bill and it will be debated and first voted on on 29 November. If it passes its second reading that day, then it would be scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament in turn. Therefore changing the law in this area would not be a quick process but one that will give time for reflection and a considered discussion of the issues raised.

I know from all the letters and emails I have received that this is a question which divides opinion among my constituents, and I understand that many people of faith are very strongly opposed to any change in the law. I have enormous respect for this view and like many moral questions there are lots of things to weigh in the balance, but I have to say that I will be voting for Kim Leadbeater’s Bill. Perhaps I could explain why?

For a long time I felt very torn about this matter. On the one hand, I am resolutely opposed to anything that might lead elderly or disabled people to be pressured by their families or others to bring their lives to an end; that would be wholly wrong. On the other hand, there are many cases in which people with terminal illnesses, often with very distressing symptoms, want to be able to choose the moment of their leaving of this world but currently cannot do so.

Reflecting on my own experience of family members who have been terminally ill, I would have wished that option to be available to them if that was what they wanted, and I think that to deny people that choice and reassurance cannot be justified any longer.

It is also worth pointing out that the UK does, in practice, currently permit assisted dying as long as people have the money and the wish to travel to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland. At present, assisting in the suicide of an individual remains a criminal offence. However, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) looked at this and decided that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute relatives in such cases. I strongly agree with the CPS because I think it would be wholly wrong to take loving relatives to court in circumstances where they have accompanied their loved ones to Switzerland, but it is no substitute for Parliament considering the law in this area and reaching a view.

It was for all these reasons that I voted in favour of Rob Marris MP’s Bill in 2015 which proposed that a terminally ill adult who is of sound mind should have the choice, with strong safeguards and the alternative of good palliative care, to self-administer medicine to end their own life. His Bill would only have covered someone aged 18 or over who was “terminally ill”; ie whose life expectancy was less than 6 months (it would not apply to people with disabilities or people who are depressed or who suffer from dementia). The person would have to have beebe of sound mind and voluntarily (ie with no coercion) sign a declaration that they wish to end their own life. Two doctors and a High Court judge would then have had to be satisfied about the requesting patient’s eligibility, and that he or she had made a fully informed decision, before assisted dying would be allowed. Then, after a 14 day waiting period, a doctor would give the medicine to the patient who would have to take it themselves; no-one else – eg the doctor, spouse or other family member – would be allowed to give them the drug. For me, this is really important as there is no question of someone else administering the drug. And there would be no requirement on any doctor to take part; ie religious belief and conscientious objection would be fully protected.

I realise, of course, that describing such a process in this way may appear shocking, but if the law is going to permit this then there must be full and proper safeguards. Without them, some of the fears about where this might all lead could come to pass, and I do not want that to happen.

The text of Kim Leadbeater’s Bill has not yet been published, but its title states that it would “allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life.” We will, of course, have to wait and see the detailed text, but I expect it will be very similar to the Bill that Parliament debated almost a decade ago – ie it will contain detailed safeguards.

Furthermore, any reform should recognise the concerns that many people have, including those who support reform in principle, to try to achieve the widest possible consensus.

A few years a man called Tony Nicklinson who had been paralysed after a stroke and could only move his head and his eyes, went to court to argue that the ban on assisted dying was incompatible with the right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (a useful reminder that the Convention protects the rights of all of us). The court declined to rule in his favour at the time, but Lord Neuberger, the then President of the Supreme Court, said this: “… a system whereby a judge or other independent assessor is satisfied in advance that someone has a voluntary, clear, settled, and informed wish to die and for his suicide then to be organised in an open and professional way, would … provide greater and more satisfactory protection for the weak and vulnerable, than a system which involves a lawyer from the DPP’s [Director of Public Prosecutions’] office inquiring, after the event, whether the person who had killed himself had such a wish, and also to investigate the actions and motives of any assister …”

The Bill in 2015 was heavily defeated in the House of Commons on a free vote, but to judge by opinion polls, this is an issue on which the public appears now to be broadly in favour of a change in the law but it is the votes of individual MPs that will count.

A decade on, I remain of the view that those who are facing the prospect of their own imminent death as a result of a terminal illness should be able to determine the timing and the manner of it, surrounded by those who love them and whom they love.

Can I also say that if the law were to change, I believe that assisted dying should not become an alternative to high-quality palliative and end of life care. People deserve dignity in dying, and each person nearing the end of their life should feel reassured and safe in the knowledge they will receive the very best care.

Thank you for contacting me about this fundamentally important and difficult issue.

Best wishes

Rt Hon Hilary Benn
MP for Leeds South