MPs must now do their duty on assisted dying
Despite the political distractions and the circus which can accompany them, the duty of an MP is fundamentally grave in nature. To our elected politicians, we hand the ability to make decisions on matters of life and death, and we trust them to do so to the fullest of their ability.
Today’s debate on the assisted dying Bill saw it pass at Second Reading by a vote of 330 to 275. It did so after just five hours of debate, after the Government failed to make more time available to MPs to discuss the matter.
Some of those who voted in favour of the Bill appear to have done so despite acknowledging concerns over potential shortcomings in its drafting, adopting the position that they could vote for the general principle of assisted dying rather than the specific legislation in front of them, and address concerns at a later stage.
With this debate now concluded, these MPs must be held to their word. Today’s vote did not mark an end to their duties but a beginning. It is incumbent upon them to ensure that, by the time the Bill reaches its Third Reading, it is fully fit for purpose, and that if they strike upon issues which cannot be resolved, to ensure that they have fully weighed the consequences of proceeding before deciding to do so.
Those MPs who opposed the Bill must also do their part, proposing ways in which concerns can be lessened, and engaging constructively with the Committee Stage in an attempt to minimise the potential harms that concern them.
The Bill’s proposer, Kim Leadbeater, will now choose a committee of MPs to scrutinise the provisions contained within it. She has promised to include opponents within this body, and should do so. There remains a great deal of work to do in ensuring that this Bill is watertight in wording and practical in implementation, from addressing the strain on NHS and court resources to ensuring provisions for preventing coercion are firmed up.
Lucy Powell, the Leader of the Commons, had previously told the House that the Government would work to make the Bill “operable” if passed, insisting that work would “begin in earnest” after today’s debate, and that MPs should consider “the principles of this Bill” rather than get “too bogged down in some of the process”.
Ms Powell, who voted for the legislation, should see to it that this promise is kept, and that sufficient time and resources are made available to MPs as they consider the Bill prior to its Third Reading.
Alongside this work, MPs of both camps should remember that for people to die well in the manner of their choosing does not necessarily mean assisted dying. As this paper said earlier this week, greater resources and attention are owed to hospice care. Today’s vote does not change that.