Plymouth MP explains why he will vote for assisted dying

Friday (November 29) will see one of the most significant and controversial votes in the long history of the House of Commons, as the assisted dying Bill comes before MPs. If it went on to become law, the bill would give some terminally ill people in England and Wales the right to die at a time of their choosing.

The Bill is due to have a five-hour debate on Friday – the first such debate in the Commons on the issue in almost a decade – with a vote expected at the end on whether it should pass through to be scrutinised by a committee.

MPs have been wrestling with the evidence and ethical dilemmas posed by the Bill - not to mention the considerable emotions involved. Fred Thomas, Labour MP for Plymouth Moor View, says it has been a time for MPs to "examine their conscience".

READ MORE: Plymouth restaurant is one of the best in the South West

READ MORE: Magical 'secret firefly garden' coming to Plymouth this week

He told Plymouth Live he will vote in favour but says it was "not an easy decision to make". Below, he explains how he made his decision:

'The freedom for people to choose'

This week has been a time for all MPs to examine their conscience and decide where they stand on a Bill to legalise assisted dying. I have been communicating with residents for weeks, knocking on doors to ask for opinions, responding to emails, and running an online survey.

Having carefully considered all the responses I received, I now feel I should share with you my thoughts and decision on the vote. On this Bill, more than many others, there was a strong argument on both sides of the debate and there was no right or wrong answer. I had to wrestle with two compelling arguments.

On the one hand, those in favour argue that assisted dying upholds personal choice, allowing individuals to make informed decisions about the timing and manner of their death. On the other side, concerns are expressed about the sanctity of life, potential for abuse, and the future consequences of putting these practices into law.

I deeply considered the argument that those in favour believe individuals should have the right to control their own bodies and make decisions regarding their death. The tragedy of forcing someone to continue living when they are experiencing unbearable suffering and a terminal illness, such as advanced cancer or degenerative neurological conditions, weighed heavily on me.

On the other hand, those against argued that palliative care needs to be improved, and that people could be put under pressure to end their lives, unless these improvements are made.

I listened to campaigners like Paralympian and House of Lords crossbencher Baroness Grey-Thompson who argued that the impact on vulnerable people, on disabled people, with the risk of coercive control, would put a wide range of citizens at risk. This was combined with a concern about the ability of doctors to make a six-month diagnosis.

I then looked at the Bill with its proposed safeguards. Anyone considering making this choice must have the mental capacity to make the choice and be deemed to have expressed a clear, settled and informed wish, free from coercion or pressure.

They must be expected to die within six months. They must make two separate declarations, witnessed and signed, about their wish to die. Two independent doctors must be satisfied the person is eligible - and there must be at least seven days between the doctors’ assessments.

A High Court judge must hear from at least one of the doctors and can also question the dying person, or anyone else they consider appropriate. There must be a further 14 days after the judge has made the ruling. Under the bill, a doctor could prepare the substance, but the person themselves must take it.

My balanced judgement was to support the Bill at this stage and allow it to go forward for further scrutiny. I believe that the freedom for people to choose, in a terminal diagnosis, the means and timing of their passing just outbalanced the concerns around possible coercion.

I understand and respect the views of colleagues who took a different view on this most sensitive issue. I will of course be continuing to fight for improvements to palliative care so that anyone in an end-of-life situation can pass without pain and with the dignity we all deserve.