On Friday 11th September 2015 the House of Commons debated the Assisted Dying (No.2) Bill. Due to the sheer number of MPs present for the debate not all of those who wished to speak got called. This included Kevin who was present throughout the debate. Below he sets out why he did not support the bill and voted against it:
"Whilst I usually spend Friday working in Torbay and holding my regular advice surgeries, I felt this issue was one where I should be present for the debate in parliament.
In relation to the Assisted Dying Bill this was a matter of individual conscience, with no party line or whip in place. Each MP was free to vote or argue as they believed was correct and as reflected by the public debate in general there are strong views on all sides of this debate with many passionate speeches givne in the House of Commons.
Last year I supported my Mother through her final days at St Luke’s Hospice in Plymouth so this issue has a particular resonance for me. She was well cared for and the treatments administered ensured she did not suffer in her final hours. Her last week was a special time and one that I would not have wished to be taken away at an earlier stage. As many said during the debate we should look to help people to live and be supported to have a pain free death through palliative care, not view giving them help to kill themselves as the solution.
I am concerned where a change in the law could end up, particularly if when giving a diagnosis Doctors knew a certain time period could bring up the issue of their patient wishing to use this procedure or if relatives put pressure on an elderly family member with a view to a likely inheritance. This could remove, rather than strengthen a patient’s self-determination.
The Assisted Dying Bill included a period of being "reasonably expected to die within six months". I suspect if this becomes law many patients would get a 7 month diagnosis from their doctor due to the potential impact of a 6 month one and the fact that in many cases (Including my Mother’s) a timeline cannot be given with such certainty.
Some of the higher profile cases in the media involving locked in sufferers or those with complex disabilities due to illness\accident (Which were cited by supporters during the debate) would not be affected by this proposed change due to their conditions not being terminal in a predictable 6 month period. It is also worth noting that under the bill the person concerned would need to self-administer the proscribed medicines although machinery could be set up to do this. It was also clear from the citing of the situation in Switzerland and these cases that this Bill would have marked the start of what could have been an every widening number of situations that could have seen this approach being made available in.
The law as it stands does allow a Doctor\Medical staff to intervene in order to end the immediate pain and suffering of a terminally ill patient, even if the level of drugs being given might endanger or shorten the patient’s life overall. The key point is the Doctor's action should be based on the need to end\prevent pain, not specifically bring about death, even if that may be the eventual result of the treatment due to levels of drugs administered.
I therefore did not support Rob Marris’ Bill, although I would support a clarification of the law if necessary to make the position I outline in the paragraph above absolutely clear for the medical profession, and patients who may fear being in pain at the very end of their lives. The difference is it would preserve a Doctor’s role as one of sustaining life and combating pain, not actively planning their patient’s death."