ifi if i knew i had the choice to have a good death, these worries would disappear. please change the law so i can live what life i have left safe in the knowledge that i have a choice about how and when i die. if you do this, i will be able to live even more happily knowing that i do not need to worry about the prospect of a cruel and painful death. sol will simply end by saying there are sincerely held views today, let this be a parliament where we ensure regardless of how we vote today that we give people a good death. i liaise we give people a good death. i have led two westminster _ we give people a good death. i have led two westminster hall— we give people a good death. i have led two westminster hall debate - we give people a good death. i have led two westminster hall debate for the petitions committee on this

subject... studio: i will pull away from the debate to speak to the paralympian baroness tenney ray thompson, who is a vocal opponent of assisted dying. thank you forjoining us on the programme today, and we have heard a lot of detail on the debate so far, opinions, emotion, whatare lot of detail on the debate so far, opinions, emotion, what are your opinions, emotion, what are your opinions on what you have heard? it is a very emotional debate and i don't know anybody on any side who does not want people to have good end—of—life care. but actually what we are asking parliament to do is look at what is in this bill and i think there are lots of gaps in it. lots of sound bites. this bill allows the doctor to suggest it to the patient, it allows doctor shopping, it does not allow any

civil litigation if the procedure is botched. it does not give any detail on how they will assess that wish. psychologists are not in favour of this bill. palliative care colleges are not in favour of this bill. we know the six—month diagnosis could very easily include people with anorexia, with type one diabetes who have stopped taking their meds, everyjurisdiction have stopped taking their meds, every jurisdiction where this have stopped taking their meds, everyjurisdiction where this has come in in some way has widened. for those saying this bill cannot be amended, let this through and it will be ok, it is thejob of parliament to amend legislation. no government can tie the hands of any future government. i don't agree with those who say it is not an issue crossing the rubicon because once this comes in, it could very easily be open to more people. for those who have not heard your

fundamental reasons for opposing assisted dying, perhaps you could briefly summarise those for us? it about the attitude towards disabled people. i'm treated three ways, as a paralympian, lovely, as a politician, mix, as a disabled person discriminated. the uk is not a good place for disabled people to live and 60% of those who died during covid were disabled and many did not have resuscitation orders placed on them. if this law comes into place, there will be doctors who decide disabled people have nothing to give society. 50 who decide disabled people have nothing to give society.— who decide disabled people have nothing to give society. so when led beater, nothing to give society. so when led beater. the — nothing to give society. so when led beater. the mp _ nothing to give society. so when led beater, the mp who _ nothing to give society. so when led beater, the mp who brought - nothing to give society. so when led| beater, the mp who brought forward this bill said allowing the right to choose does not take away the right not to choose, does that give you any assurances. it goes both ways

and i understand why they wanted, there will be people who understand they have a choice and the challenges around palliative care, accessing a gp, coercive relationships, we are not great at spotting coercion. there will be people who feel they have no choice. one of the biggest reasons people request it is because they feel a burden to their family and that is a jurisdiction many are holding up as a shining example. suicide in that state in the us, it has gone up 28% and palliative care in all jurisdictions i know of has actually, countries have gone down the world rankings. this is not sound bite stuff, the devil is in the detail and at second reading they must talk about who, what, where, how. that is what we must be debating. i where, how. that is what we must be debatina. ., ., where, how. that is what we must be debatina. . ., , where, how. that is what we must be debatina. ., ., , , ., debating. i want to pick up on workin: debating. i want to pick up on working on — debating. i want to pick up on working on cases _ debating. i want to pick up on working on cases of _ debating. i want to pick up on working on cases of coercion l debating. i want to pick up on i working on cases of coercion and debating. i want to pick up on - working on cases of coercion and it is one of the things brought up

again and again in this debate, one mp saying how does one address coercion or guilt through legislation? can you tell us more about those cases of coercion and how difficult it is to spot? it’s how difficult it is to spot? it's extremely — how difficult it is to spot? it�*s extremely difficult because lots of it is low—level. if you love me, you would not wear that, if you love me, you would not see your family, think about me... the high courtjudge has been explained as being a potential option but there's nothing in this bill to say what information high courtjudge must see. the family law division has 103 cases of children backlog waiting to go through. this could be another 400 hours a year for each high courtjudge. there is no appeal through the family court division in this. there is so many things that we must work through. i am not saying never, absolutely not,

but as parliament, it is really difficult and we must step away from motion and look at what bill says and i don't think this bill is fit for purpose. there were two big schools of thought on what was said in this debate. fine schools of thought on what was said in this debate.— in this debate. one said more details can — in this debate. one said more details can be _ in this debate. one said more details can be looked - in this debate. one said more details can be looked at - in this debate. one said more i details can be looked at through in this debate. one said more - details can be looked at through the committee stage if this bill passes and start on the process through parliament and the chair of the health select committee said she would reserve the right, although she supports the bill now, to say no at a later stage. on the other hand, the first mp who spoke opposing the bill said that it is just too huge to deal with in the timeframe this debate today allows. do you accept the changes could be made if it was to pass today, as it would make its progress through parliament? we must be lookin: at progress through parliament? we must be looking at access _ progress through parliament? we must be looking at access to _ progress through parliament? we must be looking at access to gps, _ be looking at access to gps, palliative care, i don't think in

this bill it is possible to sort some of those things out. and without getting bogged down in parliamentary procedure, not every amendment that is table get debated in the commons. we saw that at the start of the debate today where a number of mps tabled amendments were not selected. the regulations, if they get through, get done in secondary legislation, negative procedure, which means they get decided in a room away from the chamber and the vast majority of votes never go back to parliament to be debated. ., votes never go back to parliament to be debated-— be debated. could you briefly give us our be debated. could you briefly give us your assessment _ be debated. could you briefly give us your assessment of _ be debated. could you briefly give us your assessment of the - be debated. could you briefly give us your assessment of the mood i be debated. could you briefly give| us your assessment of the mood in the house of lords at the moment because we have seen today going into this, there are mps saying they are backing it, a clear number saying they are against, but also lots of mps just absolutely undecided walking into this debate earlier today? undecided walking into this debate earliertoday? does undecided walking into this debate earlier today? does the mood in the house of lords broadly reflect that?

we are not actually sitting today. generally? we are not actually sitting today. generall ? , ., , ., , ., generally? yes, there are people who are settin: generally? yes, there are people who are setting their— generally? yes, there are people who are setting their position _ generally? yes, there are people who are setting their position and - generally? yes, there are people who are setting their position and lots - are setting their position and lots in the middle. in the house of lords if it gets to us, the debate will be interesting in terms of the procedure, which is probably where we come into our own. but it is very tough on lots of new mps who may not have even had to consider what they think about this. i have been in parliament since 2010 and have spent a lot of time thinking about this and this is a big thing for many in the beginning of their parliamentary career. . ~' the beginning of their parliamentary career. . ~ , ., ., the beginning of their parliamentary career. . ~' i., ., i. career. thank you for your time toda . career. thank you for your time today- let's _ career. thank you for your time today- let's go _ career. thank you for your time today. let's go back— career. thank you for your time today. let's go back now - career. thank you for your time today. let's go back now to - career. thank you for your time today. let's go back now to the j today. let's go back now to the house of commons as the debate continues. doctor spencer mp is opposing the bill. this continues. doctor spencer mp is opposing the bill.— opposing the bill. this will not im act opposing the bill. this will not impact capacity. _ opposing the bill. this will not impact capacity, we _ opposing the bill. this will not impact capacity, we cannot. opposing the bill. this will not - impact capacity, we cannot pretend that capacity assessments are going

to be a shield for these moral concerns. where is the line? if there is one between indirect coercion and the natural human responses in a stressed family unit looking after a sick one. i believe legislation on assisted dying could be brought in that has fully reviewed and addressed these issues but parliamentarians must deal with what we have in front of us today. proponents on both sides of the debate, frame this date eight vote as a bill on assisted dying but it is a vote on the implantation as put forward in this bill. as a former mental health doctor, i am most proud that i was therefore the most vulnerable proud that i was therefore the most vul