Thank you to those of you who have took the time to contact me over 'assisted dying'. I've created this page to help you understand my detailed views about this highly emotive issue.
This rush to state sponsored suicide will do nothing for those wanting dignity in death.
Life is undeniably precious, and this decision on ‘assisted dying’ demands careful, deliberate judgment. This bill, however, fails to confront the far-reaching and irreversible consequences of legislating for a death sponsored by the National Health Service. Instead of fostering thoughtful, long-term thinking, the bill dangerously ignores the potential outcomes of such a dramatic change in the law. This is why this matter is so serious and must be debated robustly, with all points of view considered to their fullest extent. I hold the upmost respect for colleagues and constituents who hold different views, but the campaign for legalising assisted dying, is rushed, naïve and led by the ingenuous.
I have two main threads of objection to this Private Members Bill. Firstly, from a moral perspective and secondly from a practical standpoint on Parliamentary procedure. I’ve came to this decision through my own personal experience which has been reaffirmed by my time as your MP. I’ve received more correspondence on this issue from constituents in Fareham & Waterlooville than on any other. Coincidently, most constituents getting in touch oppose this legislation but even if they didn’t, this wouldn’t change my view.
I had to care for a seriously ill family relative during the last years and witnesses first-hand their decline in health and quality of life. Alongside this, I’ve listened to doctors and specialists in palliative care, end of life teams and hospices and learnt the stories of hundreds of people who have been in this difficult situation like my own. These experiences are why I have grave concerns over this legislation.
I worry, not of the intentions of those who will vote in favour, but the consequences of their actions. The term ‘slippery slope’ is often bandied around in politics, but this is an occasion where is should be used with upmost seriousness.
Euthanasia was legalised in Canada back in 2016, MAID as it is known (Medical Assistance in Dying) was only initially permitted for terminally ill patients. In the last 10 years, MAID has advanced slowly, like a creeping barrage. In 2019, the law was expanded and two years later MAID was condemned by the United Nations who warned of a ‘two-tiered system’ that ‘would push people with disabilities towards suicide’. In 2022, over 13,000 people ended their lives in Canada – an increase of 30% on the previous year. Alarmingly earlier this year the Canadian government was due to bring in an expansion to Euthanasia for those who have a mental illness, thankfully under pressure, this has been postponed, for now.
The tragic reality of Canada’s euthanasia laws should be a glaring red flag to us in the UK. The Canadian legislation is a real time ‘air raid siren’ warning us of the dangers that come when well-meaning intentions lead to unintended harm and death.
Call it a ‘slippery slope’, ‘thin end of the wedge’, ‘tip of the iceberg’ - use whatever metaphor you like, the point stands, once the euthanasia box is opened, it cannot be closed. It’s not just Canada, but closer to home in the Netherlands, where doctors have assisted in the suicide of people not only terminally or physically ill or for whom the burden of living is just too great but for children as young as 12. Is that future really one that Ms Leadbeater or supporters of this bill want?
The discussion to the change in the law by supporters of ‘assisted dying’ fails to address the serious unintended consequences that will occur if this rushed bill comes into law. The disastrous, real life case study of other countries euthanasia laws must act as a deterrent against this change in the law. Although some perceive these changes to be well intentioned and well meaning, many will be exposed by this foolish legislation.
And what about the process of this bill coming into Parliament? Here is my second worry. A Private Members Bill, that won its debate time through a lottery and has not been introduced by government is not the way that this legislation should be passed. Due to the nature of the bill, MP’s will only have five hours to debate this incredibly important subject. How, in this time can proponents and opponents have a genuine about of time for the robust debate that this topic deserves?
The haste of this legislation also extends to the act of the suicide itself. Having read the bill, the safeguards are nowhere near strong enough as campaigners for state-assisted euthanasia would have you suggest. The text of the bill means just the signatures of three other people are required to end someone’s life. Proponents of this bill may believe it to be compassionate, but the truth is, it risks leaving our most vulnerable—the elderly, the disabled, and those struggling with mental health at risk choosing death simply because they feel like a burden.
And how do we know if someone is genuine in their thought process? The answer is, we can’t. I fear that many disabled people, will feel pressured into killing themselves because of the cost of health and social care on their families.
Just as concerningly, if this law passes, our membership in the ECHR will mean euthanasia will be expanded not by Parliament, but through a foreign court via its “non-discrimination” policies. The historical jurisprudence of the ECHR shows us the scope of the law will spiral far beyond its original intent, opening the door to assisted death for individuals who feel pressured into it, not because they truly want it. So however well-meaning supporters of the bill are, they cannot be certain that their safeguards are fool proof.
The fact that this bill is being rushed through Parliament only deepens our collective anxiety. Any law concerning life and death demands scrutiny, thoughtful debate, and absolute caution. Passing this bill hastily, without full consideration, would be recklessly irresponsible. As more information about this bill emerges, it’s clear that many of my colleagues are shifting from reluctant assurance to firm opposition. This is not a decision to be made in haste—it’s a matter of life and death, and the people of this country deserve better.
For all these reasons, I cannot support this bill, now or ever. It’s not just a bad law; it’s a dangerous one that endangers our shared values and the lives of our loved ones.
Suella
