Key moments in today's Assisted Suicide Debate

MPs today debated and voted on yet another assisted suicide Bill. The debate began at 0930am and finished just after 2pm. There were some strong speeches against the Bill from all sides of the House.

You can find below some of the strongest lines used during the debate.

Dame Karen Bradley (CON)

"Recognising abuse is really difficult. Those who have the misfortune of watching daytime TV may notice that there are currently adverts for “no frills” cremation services. I am particularly struck by one, which features a woman of late middle age, who is slightly small and says in a quivering voice that she does not want to be a burden or cause any fuss and does not want her family to have an awful time at the point of her death. Therefore, she is investing in a “no frills” cremation to make things better for her family. That person exists. The advertising agency would not bother making that advertisement if that person did not exist.

We have to think about the most vulnerable. These are the people who Parliament—this House—has a particular duty to remember when we legislate and, today, when we decide whether this Bill, without further changes, is safe to become law.

The question before us is, what decision will this House make. I recognise that the sponsor, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), is keen to focus on the other place. There is an appealing simplicity in saying, “Send it back there and let them do their work”, but this is not really about the other place anymore. That House has made itself irrelevant. It is about this House and this House alone.

If we seek to engage the Parliament Act, we are, in effect, taking a unicameral decision, and we should understand what that means. We would be declaring that the Bill before us is in a fit state to become law whether or not the other place completes its work. There is no separate process by which this House later authorises the Parliament Act. Our approval of the Bill is the decision."

Dr Zubir Ahmed (LAB)

"I have to be honest. When I am asked to prognosticate on whether someone has six months to live, I am as often wrong as I am right. It is no longer a good enough marker for the DWP to use in discharging benefits for life-limiting conditions, and I do not see why it should be a good enough marker for prescribing death.

There is another paradox in this legislation: someone like me could write a prescription to induce death with less regulatory oversight than is on me when I have to remove a kidney to give life through transplantation. Of course, I sympathise with and endorse the desire of many colleagues who support this Bill to relieve suffering. To be clear, we have many tools to do this, and we must bust some myths today. Clinical discretion, for instance, means that there is no maximum dose of morphine, so I can give my patients whatever they need, in the setting in which they need it. But this Bill is less about relieving suffering and more about bypassing its possibility, and I understand that.

Turning to safeguards, much is made of the provision requiring two doctors to assess eligibility, but the trouble is that neither has to know the patient well, or go to any great lengths to exclude the likelihood of coercion. Doctors are trained to do many things, but assessing and picking up on coercion is not one of them. In fact, consultant psychiatrists with PhDs in coercion, like the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), whom I hope we will hear from soon, have said in written testimony presented in court that they would find it difficult to exclude coercive controlling behaviour.

I came into medicine, and into Parliament, to act with compassion, and to provide dignity to those we serve. I believe that is why we are all here. Compassion and kindness is not the preserve of one those on one side of the argument or another, but for me, compassion and kindness also calls to courage—the courage to be honest with patient and constituent alike. We need the compassion and honesty to say that the Bill will not fulfil its aims; it will disappoint many who crave total agency and control, and it will expose and disenfranchise further the vulnerable in our society. We need the compassion and honesty to say that our NHS, while a great institution, is not, in its current form and state, ready. It is not safe for this conversation or for this Bill in this moment."

Ashley Dalton (LAB)

"In the campaign around this Bill, though, it seems to me that it is being implied that a person with a terminal illness will have a dreadful, painful death unless they have access to assisted dying. That is simply not true; palliative care in the UK is excellent. Far too many people do not have access to the palliative care they need, but the idea that it is not possible to alleviate pain and discomfort is false. People have been terrorised—I have been terrorised—with tales of people vomiting up their own faeces, as though this is commonplace during death. It is vanishingly rare. Bowel obstructions are more common, but they are treatable. I know—I have had one. It is nothing short of irresponsible to scaremonger people like me into believing our deaths will be horrific when all the evidence suggests that, with access to good palliative care, deaths are, on the whole, gentle.

The answer is not to terrify people and their families. It is to sort out palliative care and social care first, because none of this takes place in a vacuum. Until we can say that everyone who needs it has access to high-quality palliative care, we are offering nobody a choice. A terrible death or an assisted death is not a choice; it is a threat.

Whatever hon. or right hon. Members think about the principle of assisted dying, surely our first and foremost responsibility is to write law that is safe and workable. Not one of the professional bodies that would be tasked with delivering the Bill is willing to attest that it is, as it stands, safe or workable. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Association for Palliative Medicine and the Royal College of Physicians all say that the Bill is seriously inadequate. They are not opposed to assisted dying in principle, but they cannot support this Bill.

Instead of bringing a Bill identical to the last, so that the Parliament Acts can be used and the Bill can be forced unamended on to the statute book, why did the proposers not spend the summer working with the royal medical colleges, the professional bodies and organisations to build a Bill that they could support? If they had done that, it would have been difficult for anyone opposed to the principle to argue against the Bill. But they did not do that.

This is not about sides. This House is not a debating society; it is about making the law. While we may be campaigners out there, in here we are all legislators. It is our responsibility not to pick a side and dig in, but to work together to build the best laws that we can, and that is never truer than with a private Member’s Bill on a matter of conscience."

Janet Dalby (LAB) (Janet changed her mind from how she voted last year)

"Earlier this year, up to 60% of hospices reported that they were having to make cuts to frontline services as a result of financial pressures. And while the government has increased funding for the sector, it is clear that far more work is needed before those in need of support at the end of life receive the dignified care and choice of treatment they deserve. Alongside this, there is the additional pressures on the broader health service and the legal sector resulting from this bill, which reinforces my decision to vote against it.

Now, I implore the government to invest in hospice and palliative care across the country to make it the best it can be for all postcodes. Now, following my vote in favour of assisted dying for the following two nights, I had nightmares about dying and death. I had to wrestle with myself, knowing that I was not entirely comfortable with the decision I had made and my conscience was not at peace, and I cannot in good conscience vote for the bill. In fact, I wish there was a bill before this chamber that we could have all gotten behind, as there is so much that needs to be done in our society.

I decided that if the opportunity should arise again, I'd be voting against assisted dying."