A TAMESIDE MP has softened his stance towards the controversial Assisted Dying Bill after it passed its latest stage.
330 MPs voted in favour of the proposed legislation, with 275 opposing in the free vote on Friday, November 29.
Under what has been put forward by Labour’s Kim Leadbeater MP, terminally ill adults with less than six months to live would get the right to die once the request has been signed off by two doctors and a high court judge.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves voted in favour alongside prominent Conservatives Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt.
But Deputy Prime Minister, Ashton-under-Lyne’s Angela Rayner and Business Secretary, Stalybridge and Hyde’s Jonathan Reynolds, were against.
However, the borough’s other parliamentary representative, Gorton and Denton’s Andrew Gwynne, admits he has slightly altered his view.
Although he was not in London for the vote because of ‘long-standing constituency commitments,’ he said: “In the past, I’ve opposed changes to the law in this area.
“Although I have now changed my position, being much more sympathetic to allowing assisted dying within a framework that also heavily emphasises protections and safeguards.
“I don’t know whether this Bill actually strikes that balance and I’d expect these issues to be thoroughly discussed at Committee Stage.
“I believe it is right to discuss this as a private members bill, and for the pros and cons of a change of law to be aired and discussed on the floor of the House.”
For more than four hours, MPs debated why the bill should and should not go through, including many emotional testimonies.
But Mr Reynolds, who cancelled his usual constituency commitments to be in attendance, backed the narrowly prevailing view of his area.
He said: “The response from our area has been pretty much split 50-50, with a few more letters and emails against than in support.
“All sides agree on one thing, this would be a huge change.
“What is being proposed in the Bill is itself very significant, but also in my view it is fairly certain if it goes through the scope will be extended in future.
“Instinctively I feel on a change of this magnitude you should be completely convinced it is the right thing to do. I am not convinced of that case.
“One argument I don’t recognise is that we should do something just because other countries have done so. This is about our country, our society, and that is how we should consider what is being proposed.
“The Bill proposes assisted dying being available for people who have received a terminal diagnosis of less than six months to live, and who can make the conscious choice to opt to end their life in this way.
“A lot of people in favour have spoken to me about family members who suffered from dementia at the end of their life.
“I know this experience too – my grandmother had Alzheimer’s. It is important to clarify however that people in this position would not be eligible to take their own lives under the measures in this Bill, as they would not have due capacity to make the decision.
“I know some people very much do want the ability to end their own life in future. But one of the key questions for me has been this – under a situation where a person does qualify to end their own life under what is being proposed, but wants to do so because they feel a burden to their family rather than they are in acute pain, are we comfortable with that?
“Would the very existence of such a right risk creating an expectation that it should be exercised?
“Do we feel vulnerable people could definitely be protected? I feel in this instance the precautionary principle should apply.
“Alongside that, do we feel as a country we have the right level of palliative care, social care, hospice provision and other services to give people the right framework to make this decision?
“Finally, what is being proposed is a very significant change for the NHS. The details in the Bill of how people would physically end their own lives leave me with a lot of questions, including how health services would be configured to provide the lethal drugs necessary to provide it?
“Taking all of this on board, I do not feel able to support this Bill.”
The third Tameside MP, Ms Rayner, also detailed her reasons for voting against.
She told the Correspondent: “This is a complex and emotive issue and I know there are strongly held ethical and moral views on both sides of the debate.
“Successive governments, of both parties, have taken the position that the law on assisted suicide is a matter of conscience for individual MPs and after careful deliberation, I voted against.
“The Bill will need to be further scrutinised by MPs, with amendments considered, in the coming months, before a final vote is held on whether to approve it. It will also need to pass the House of Lords.
“I welcome that the House of Commons unanimously agreed that the Committee of MPs examining the Bill can take evidence, with supporters and opponents of the draft law able to submit their views.
“There will, therefore, be extensive opportunities for this matter to be properly debated, as it should be.
“In my view, any change in the law must include strong safeguards.
“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.”
Now the bill has been voted through, it will go to a public bill committee of MPs and if agreed, it will return to the House of Commons at the report stage and a third reading.
As Mr Reynolds added: “It is also important to say that it won’t immediately become law – like any Bill it must then pass through all stages, including the House of Lords.
“But this would be about the detail of the change rather than the principle itself.”
If voted through then, it will go to the House of Lords before eventually being sent to the King for royal assent.
Even if it is received, the vast majority of the bill will not come into effect at this stage. Instead, it will come into force either two years after royal assent or at an earlier date appointed by the health secretary.
A further process of policy making will also have to take place in the Department of Health and Social Care should the bill pass because a number of decisions required for operation of the bill are delegated to the Secretary of State.