Do no harm: the progressive case against assisted dying

Next week, parliament will have its first opportunity to vote on assisted dying in almost a decade. This is a matter of conscience; it supersedes party politics and each MP is rightly given the freedom to make up their own mind.

I sympathise with many of the views expressed on both sides of this debate, which are put forward in good faith and built from a genuine desire to achieve the best outcomes for patients. While I disagree with my colleagues who have come out in support of this bill, I do not doubt for a second that they do so in accordance with their genuinely held beliefs. I sincerely hope next week sees a high-quality, respectful debate. This is no less than people deserve. After much consideration, I have decided I will be voting against the bill.

Some claim that assisted dying is an inherently progressive policy, one which all of us on the left ought to support as a matter of personal freedom. I disagree with this assessment; my opposition to assisted dying is born from my commitment as a Labour MP to protecting everyone in society.

Nobody wants to see a loved one suffering in pain during their final days and weeks. However, I disagree with campaigners who cite this as a reason to allow doctors to prematurely end someone’s life. The entire ethos behind palliative care is to ensure that those who are approaching the end can spend the time they have left in as much comfort as possible. This is where our focus ought to be instead.

My concerns about assisted dying cannot be adequately addressed through safeguards. Kim Leadbeater’s bill already contains a large number of these, and I have no doubt that more would be added during its parliamentary journey, should it pass its first stage next week.