Thank you for contacting me about assisted dying and the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

As you will know, the Bill passed its second reading on 29 November by 330 votes to 275, after five hours of debate which was emotional, informed and respectful. The Bill will now go into committee where it will be scrutinised carefully, and the committee will have the power to take oral evidence. After the committee stage, it will come back to the House of Commons for report and third reading, and if it receives third reading, it will then move to the House of Lords for consideration. In other words, there is a long way to go, and Kim Leadbeater, the MP in charge of the Bill, has said that she will ensure that the Bill committee is representative of the range of views expressed in the recent debate.

This is a very sensitive issue and there are strongly held ethical and moral views on both sides. Successive governments, of both parties, have taken the view that the law on assisted dying is a matter of conscience for individual MPs.

I know from all the letters and emails I have received that this is a question which also 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 decided to vote for Kim Leadbeater’s Bill.

Perhaps I could explain why?

For a long time I felt very torn about this matter. 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 – but 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. 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.

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.

A number of 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…”

Kim Leadbeater’s Bill proposes that a terminally ill adult who is of sound mind should have the choice, with strong safeguards, to self-administer medicine to end their own life. The Bill would only apply to 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 be of sound mind and voluntarily (ie with no coercion) make two separate witnessed declarations that they wish to end their own life. Two doctors and a High Court judge (who would have to hear from at least one of the doctors and could also question the dying person or anyone else they consider appropriate) would then have had to be satisfied about the requesting patient’s eligibility, and that he or she had made a fully informed decision without any coercion, 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. And, of course, just because someone has made the request and been given the drug they are under no obligation to take it. Indeed, the evidence from other jurisdictions is that in a number of cases patients do not choose to end their life in that way but they do want to have the reassurance that if their pain and suffering becomes too much then they have a means of doing so.

There would be no requirement on any doctor to take part; ie religious belief and conscientious objection would be fully protected. And, finally, the Bill would make it illegal for someone to pressure, coerce or use dishonesty to get someone to make a declaration they wish to end their own life or to induce someone to self administer an approved substance, with a penalty of up to 14 years in prison. This is a safeguard that is not present currently when, as we know, quite a few people already take their own lives because of the suffering they are facing.

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 once again for contacting me about this fundamentally important and difficult issue.

Best wishes

Rt Hon Hilary Benn
MP for Leeds South