she was able to take current law, she was able to take that decision. people are already legally able to die early through withdrawal of treatment. i emphasise that she would not have been eligible under the criteria of this bill and i have got no idea what she would have chosen if she had a choice. but the fact remains that her capacity was assessed by a doctor and she was allowed under current law to die early. the bma has told us they regularly assess full capacity, coercion and consent, for example in abortion care, and in the example of my relatives, dying through withdrawal of treatment. this bill and the safeguard to put in place give a stronger framework protection than the existing law. in this built two doctors have two test for capacity, coercion and consent. that has to be reviewed by a hook at

—— high courtjudge. there are pauses for reflection built into process. if it does get to the point of an assisted death, the patient themselves must administer the approved substance. let's be clear about who this bill is for. the eligibility criteria are extremely narrow. some have argued they are too narrow. this bill is for mentally competent adults who are nearing the end of their lives. they are dying and they are dying soon. many people with a terminal illness will have a perfectly ordinary death, managed perfectly well by palliative care. but we have heard in recent weeks and over many years about the people who do need this bill. the people for whom even the best palliative care simply does not work. the people for whom the option of an assisted death gives them

peace and comfort and a chance to enjoy the rest of their lives without fearing the manner of their death. and with the safeguards contained within this bill, who are we to deny them that peace? who are we to deny them that peace? who are we to deny them that peace? who are we to decide what they must bear as they are die? we have the power through a robust legislative process to prevent human suffering. good palliative care and assisted dying are not at odds, not at conflict, they are both aiming for the same thing — a good death surrounded by people you love with minimal pain and without fear. today we can vote for that in the sure knowledge that if it has a second reading, this bill will undergo intensive scrutiny, to ensure it is a good law that works in the way it is intended to do. this is the start of a legislative process, not the end.

colleagues across the house, i urge you today to vote yes.— you today to vote yes. today i want to talk about _ you today to vote yes. today i want to talk about two _ you today to vote yes. today i want to talk about two aspects _ you today to vote yes. today i want to talk about two aspects of - you today to vote yes. today i want to talk about two aspects of the - to talk about two aspects of the bill. what the bill could have done in terms of safeguards but doesn't and what the bill does not do but could never resolve. on the first point, i want to talk about the safeguards and in particular the legal and you just feel once which i think are grossly inadequate. —— and judicial ones. add lawn trivial things is bad enough and i have seen a lot of that in my time in this house. but bad law on matters of life and death is unforgivable. we have spoken about the role of doctors. let's think about the role of judges. doctors. let's think about the role ofjudges. the test which is to be applied is a low one. it is the civil war threshold. this is a balance of probabilities. this means a judge could see real risk of

coercion and still sign off this individualfor coercion and still sign off this individual for assisted death. coercion and still sign off this individualfor assisted death. if the threshold was not reached of 50% or more, thejudge the threshold was not reached of 50% or more, the judge would the threshold was not reached of 50% or more, thejudge would sign off the individual. next of kin is not informed. there is no right of appeal, which is extremely unusual in english law. and the process is conducted in secrecy. it could be done on papers alone. transparency is absolutely critical to the law. it is one of the oldest principles in our english legal system. i think of people likejeremy bentham, who spoke hundreds of years ago and said that evil can arise in secrecy. it is publicity that is at the heart of justice. this is not a transparent process and that leaves it woefully open to abuse. the second point i would make is this, we all want to

believe in this house that the laws we pass our final, believe in this house that the laws we pass ourfinal, that believe in this house that the laws we pass our final, that is believe in this house that the laws we pass ourfinal, that is not believe in this house that the laws we pass our final, that is not the case. i worry and i am certain that as night follows day, this law if past will change. not as a result of the individuals in this chamber or in the other place but as a result ofjudges. in other places. we have seen that time and again. it may be on either side of the debate, but it will happen. this act, if passed, will happen. this act, if passed, will be subject to activistjudges in strasbourg. they will change it fundamentally. and we have to be prepared for that. i don't want to see that happen. the last point i make is this and it does not relate to what we might be able to do to improve the bill. it is something we can never resolve as a house. it is that i don't think it is as much a

slippery slope, i think it is like a cliff edge. when we walk out of this chamber or out of the gates of this building tonight, we will walk into a different country if this bill passes. there will be different conversations around kitchen tables, different conversations had by couples lying in bed at night, on quiet country walks when people talk about difficult things. they will not be conversations i think make our country a better place. and more important than that, there will be people who do not speak about these things at all. there will be imperceptible changes in behaviours, the grandmother who worries about her grandchildren's inheritance if she does not end her life, the widow who relies on the kindness of strangers who worries and it preys on her conscience, there will be people who are, and we know them in our lives, shire with low self—esteem, who have demons within

them. i know those people and fancy them. i know those people and fancy them in my mind's eye, they are often poor, vulnerable and the weakest in society and they look to us. —— i can see them in my mind's eye. they look to us to protect them. in their interest i will be voting against the bill today. sometimes we must fetter our freedoms. we're competent, capable, informed sometimes have to put the most vulnerable society first. thank ou. i most vulnerable society first. thank yom i wanted _ most vulnerable society first. thank you. i wanted to _ most vulnerable society first. thank you. i wanted to start _ most vulnerable society first. thank you. i wanted to start by _ most vulnerable society first. “maria; you. i wanted to start by commending the comments from the honourable member because i think he outlined some other complications with this legislation as it stands. i also want to put on record my admiration for the memberfor want to put on record my admiration for the member for birmingham want to put on record my admiration for the memberfor birmingham who in my opinion has been disgracefully

singled out for her support of this bill in comparison to others. the bill in comparison to others. the bill before us today as potentially the most consequential piece of legislation that has been considered during my time in this house. it is at the heart of the matter of why i came into politics. a lot of us have spoken about coercion and it is about providing a voice for the people who do not often have one of their own. it is this principle that has guided my decision to oppose this bill today. i know there are sincerely held beliefs on both sides of this debate and they cant seem completely at odds with each other but it is my firm view that everyone speaking today shares the same goal, a more compassionate society which everyone can live and die with dignity. but true compassion should have equality at its heart. it is for this reason i cannot support the

proposals as it stands. we must recognise the hard truth, that health inequalities are wide and persistent. we know that black and minority ethnic disabled people have far worse health outcomes than the national average. far worse health outcomes than the nationalaverage. i have far worse health outcomes than the national average. i have seen this first—hand, caring for my mother, who suffered with sickle—cell anaemia. as a teenager, i would be by her side and when she was in excruciating pain, explaining to a doctor who would not believe her when she told them she needed life—saving medication. and sadly, this is still the reality today. i am reminded of the death on the 25th of april at north middlesex

hospital, having suffered from sickle—cell too, and he was in so much pain that he had to ring 999 from his hospital bed because he was denied oxygen and basic care by the doctors. put simply, we should be helping people to live comfortable, pain—free lives on their own terms before we think about making it easierfor them to die. before we think about making it easier for them to die. colleagues will be aware of section 15 of the proposed bill which outlines the provision for signing by proxy. i am worried this could create issues for vulnerable groups that are more prone to coercion by family members. as many members have already said, assessing beyond doubt if someone has been put under pressure or coerced will be difficult. if this legislation is passed, even the legal experts seem to have a disagreement on this. i do not

believe there has been enough scrutiny on this. the risk of coercion would be for the highest, some of the most disadvantaged in our communities. as a society re—risk pushing people to seek an early death —— we risk. i cannot in good conscience support this. my late mother live with chronic illness all her life and i knew that one day her pain would be too unbearable for her, but she did not let that limit her. she wanted to live. i believe this bill would protect the wishes, would not protect the wishes, would not protect the wishes of people in her situation today. because freedom in a death is only possible if you have had freedom in life. i would close by asking this, how can we be possibly satisfied that this bill would deliver a quality and freedom in death when we do not yet have

this in life? if in death when we do not yet have this in life?— in death when we do not yet have this in life? if colleagues continue to work with _ this in life? if colleagues continue to work with me, _ this in life? if colleagues continue to work with me, i _ this in life? if colleagues continue to work with me, i will— this in life? if colleagues continue to work with me, i will try - this in life? if colleagues continue to work with me, i will try to - this in life? if colleagues continue to work with me, i will try to get i to work with me, i will try to get as many— to work with me, i will try to get as many people in. | to work with me, i will try to get as many people in.— as many people in. i think the startin: as many people in. i think the starting point _ as many people in. i think the starting point for _ as many people in. i think the starting point for many - as many people in. i think the starting point for many of - as many people in. i think the starting point for many of us i as many people in. i think the - starting point for many of us today is how to resolve that dilemma of what i want for myself with the fear of enabling potentially terrible consequences for others. there is a rational fear of the reality of coercion and what drives decisions within families, what individuals feel it's best for their families. there is a rationalfear of feel it's best for their families. there is a rational fear of how institutional pressures, lack of resources and appallingly culture within the nhs might ramp up the convenience of death. this is not a new fear and the honourable member for york central mentioned this. baroness neuberger�*s review into the care pathway said that in order for everyone dying in the acute sector

can do so with dignity the present situation must change, and that was in 2013. we know in the aftermath of covid how little has changed. death is an institutional convenience... studio: we will is an institutional convenience... studio: we wileust pull away from the debate for a moment because we canjoin former high court the debate for a moment because we can join former high courtjudge and co—presenter of movers and shakers podcasts are nicholas mostyn. thank you for taking the time to talk to us today. we had that emotional testimony from an mp. what are your 34 testimony from an mp. what are your 3a foot thought on the debate so far? it 34 foot thought on the debate so far? ., , , 34 foot thought on the debate so far? . , , ., ., far? it has been a intelligent and somewhat emotional _ far? it has been a intelligent and somewhat emotional and - far? it has been a intelligent and somewhat emotional and fair - far? it has been a intelligent and - somewhat emotional and fair debate and i think both sides of the ardent being reasonably good but i believe the arguments that advances coercion as a reason for resisting this reform is overstated. coercion as a

reason to resist — reform is overstated. coercion as a reason to resist this _ reform is overstated. coercion as a reason to resist this is _ reform is overstated. coercion as a reason to resist this is overstated, | reason to resist this is overstated, you have made it clear up to this point but you are in favour of assisted dying, the favour of this bill, but you have said the bill does not go far enough. tell our viewers what you mean by that. the bill at the viewers what you mean by that. tue: bill at the moment viewers what you mean by that. t'te: bill at the moment only viewers what you mean by that. tt2 bill at the moment only permits a person to have an assisted death if death itself is very approximate, within six months but does not address the situation which many will confront of somebody being not being definitively within six months of death but still suffering intolerably. it doesn't even address the concept of suffering and i don't know why that intolerable suffering should not be a reason to allow somebody to make the decision for themselves, exercising sovereignty over their own bodies to bring their lives to an end in a civilised and dignified way.

you are referencing their hypothesis has informed your opinion on this debate. t has informed your opinion on this debate. . , has informed your opinion on this debate. ., , ., ., , ., has informed your opinion on this debate. ., ., , ., debate. i am very anxious to say that not everyone _ debate. i am very anxious to say that not everyone who _ debate. i am very anxious to say that not everyone who has - that not everyone who has parkinson's will have a terrible death, but we do know that the ending for people with parkinson's is probably not going to be a good one. , , , is probably not going to be a good one. , ,, , one. does this bill as it stands, --eole one. does this bill as it stands, people who _ one. does this bill as it stands, people who are _ one. does this bill as it stands, people who are going - one. does this bill as it stands, people who are going through i one. does this bill as it stands, - people who are going through painful conditions which are affecting the quality of life, i think what we have heard today from a lot of mps is a concern that there aren't enough safeguards to distinguish those who do want to end their lives and those who do not, he may be under some form of coercion, whether thatis under some form of coercion, whether that is external or internal. dealing with external, ijust don't believe in places like spain, canada

or holland there are hordes of vino guilt tripping bullying members of the family who are trying to push their loved ones in generally deaf so that their lives can be easier. i just don't believe that exists, i really don't. as for the internal reasons, if someone informs the view that for reason they want to bring their life to an end, i would have their life to an end, i would have the primary reason would have to be suffering, but in addition to that then they don't want to be a burden of the families, for me that it's a perfectly valid reason. i can see why that is condemned as an invalid reason. �* , ~' why that is condemned as an invalid reason. 2 ~ ., why that is condemned as an invalid reason. �* , ~ ., ., reason. let's link through to the hiuh reason. let's link through to the high court _ reason. let's link through to the high court pots _ reason. let's link through to the high court pots macro _ reason. let's link through to the high court pots macro within - reason. let's link through to the i high court pots macro within this. she talked about the capacity to deal with this. ajudge she talked about the capacity to deal with this. a judge could she talked about the capacity to deal with this. ajudge could be she talked about the capacity to deal with this. a judge could be a rubber—stamp, just receiving an e—mail or a phone call to go through

and it is the dying process. what are your thoughts on bats? do you think the high court could just be a rubber—stamp in this? think the high court could 'ust be a rubber-stamp in this?_ think the high court could 'ust be a rubber-stamp in this? there must be a reason why — rubber-stamp in this? there must be a reason why no _ rubber-stamp in this? there must be a reason why no other _ rubber-stamp in this? there must be a reason why no other country - rubber-stamp in this? there must be a reason why no other country that i a reason why no other country that has allowed assisted dying has this overlay of traditional approval. there must be a reason for that. i can't see what decision over and above that that is made by the two doctors, one of the miss independent is going to supply. i genuinely can't see that. i'm not even culture with the judge is supposed to be doing. he is not making best interest decision about whether somebody should or shouldn't i. he isjust somebody should or shouldn't i. he is just checking that everything that has meant to have happened has happened. all he will have is the evidence of the two doctors. i think diane abbott makes an point when she says it will be rubber—stamped. there is no adversarial aspect to what the judge is going to do. there is no adversarial aspect to what thejudge is going to do. i don't think there would be time of

the resources to appoint an official solicitor to represent life as opposed to death. i don't see how it could be done. i was watching mr gen x and that is all going to be done in secret but i don't think that is right because rooms haven't been passed. what is the judge supposed to do? he is going to ask the doctor are you satisfied this is entirely voluntary and the judge will say yes, that will be eight, won't it? do you think the judge should have a bigger role? trio. do you think the 'udge should have a bi aer role? ., ., �* ~ bigger role? no, i don't think it should be _ bigger role? no, i don't think it should be a _ bigger role? no, i don't think it should be a judicial _ bigger role? no, i don't think it| should be a judicial involvement bigger role? no, i don't think it. should be a judicial involvement at all. i think should be a judicial involvement at all. ithink it should be a judicial involvement at all. i think it is within the capacity, if i go into hospital and i have suffered... have to climb terribly and i have suffered some kind of decline, it is my right to say it is awful do not give me any antibiotics or treatment and you can turn off my hydration and nutrition, i want to die. that is entirely lawful. you don't have a judge

coming along to ask if i have come to that condition voluntarily. the doctors have to turn me off. that is what the existing rules say.- what the existing rules say. robert jenrick what the existing rules say. robert jenrick said — what the existing rules say. robert jenrick said he _ what the existing rules say. robert jenrick said he is _ what the existing rules say. robert jenrick said he is sure _ what the existing rules say. robert jenrick said he is sure that - what the existing rules say. robert jenrick said he is sure that if - what the existing rules say. robert jenrick said he is sure that if this i jenrick said he is sure that if this bill is passed that it will ultimately change. he referred to judges in strasbourg. do you think thatis judges in strasbourg. do you think that is a likely prospect? the 'udaes in that is a likely prospect? tt2 judges in strasbourg have said consistently that assisted dying is a matterfor the nation states consistently that assisted dying is a matter for the nation states and have not touch this with a barge pole so i think if any court doesn't tripping when this happens it won't be a court in strasbourg, it will probably be a court in westminster directly opposite from where we are speaking from. the bill in its present form, if it is passed, it discriminates against people by virtue of their status, the state is paying you within six months of death? . ~

paying you within six months of death? ., ~' , ., paying you within six months of death? ., ~ , ., , paying you within six months of death? ., ~ i. , . , death? thank you very much. very aood to death? thank you very much. very good to get _ death? thank you very much. very good to get your — death? thank you very much. very good to get your thoughts - death? thank you very much. very good to get your thoughts on - death? thank you very much. very good to get your thoughts on the i good to get your thoughts on the debate today. let's return now to the debates and a discussion on palliative care. an literal bloody time bomb that no one knows when it will go off. do you know what the modern medicine answer to that is? keep dark tiles nearby for the blood. there is no cure. there is no respite. what would you do? currently for these patients we can offer a new agency over their ends. patients we can offer a new agency overtheir ends. no patients we can offer a new agency over their ends. no alternative to this terrifying death. can we truly said that it's compassionate? should we not even offered to suffering the chance of dignity and their death? this is what the bill stands for.

she rejected at second reading is notjust she rejected at second reading is not just a vote she rejected at second reading is notjust a vote against she rejected at second reading is not just a vote against assisted dying, it is to silence the debate for another decade. to say that the status quo is acceptable, to satisfying for those who afforded can fly to another country while others are left here without recourse. i can't accept that. for what is this house for if not to empower people? to give them the tools to shape their lives and, yes, their deaths. today we have the chance to put compassion into action, to offer a choice to those facing the ultimate sacrifice. i hugely respect those members who take a different view. i simply and gently say to them there are consequences. those intractable cases will still be there, with no solution, no choice in this country and no resolution to their suffering. those who are understandably a little unsure, well

if you do have doubts about the safeguards, but implementations and agree —— i agree some are valid, then let the debate continue. for some of you it will be a bridge too far, but if necessary rejected at third reading, but to stop it now is to stop the conversation entirely, to stop the conversation entirely, to take the choice of the table, to remove a dying person's agency. another is considered i ask again, how do you want to die? this another is considered i ask again, how do you want to die?— how do you want to die? this bill assess to make _ how do you want to die? this bill assess to make a _ how do you want to die? this bill assess to make a profound - how do you want to die? this bill assess to make a profound and l assess to make a profound and irreversible decision to the principles of our health service and end—of—life care. with end—of—life care funded too often on a shoestring for many, this bill takes our focus to entering life, not improving living as life draws to a close with terminal illness. i

believe it poses significant risks. our wider societal, believe it poses significant risks. ourwidersocietal, cultural believe it poses significant risks. our wider societal, cultural norms will be changed forever. those that refuse to acknowledge this prospect now do so with the benefit of things as they are now and my point is that this concept changes immediately today if the bill is passed. the safeguards may sound rigorous on paper, but the strange state of our nhs means many patients do not have a consistent relationship with a name to doctor. we are attributed to health centres nowadays, not name to doctors. someone because my consideration of this decision depends on which doctor dacey, won the race is assisted dying is an option versus one who refuses. a deeply troubling prospect with this bill. the ideation of assisted dying

will become a balance. we know now that there is a range of assisted dying views across our gps, so we cannot deny that who you end up seeing with your terminal illness might be how you end up. and the doctors, possibly in the presence of a loved one, under strain and also in need of respite themselves, this first suggestion is the beginning of a journey towards assisted dying. this is —— before you consider the purchase of marketing, commercialisation and the industry that will spring up if this bill passes and it is sewn into our nhs. it is possible we cannot imagine being the victim of coercion or that his mps are agency is so baked into our experiences of living we cannot envisage a scenario where those who already claim to feel unseen and

directed towards meeting their end sooner than otherwise might have been. our casework from constituents is full of cases of people struggling to access the rights we have enshrined in law, access to justice, health, education, support. as victims often of state neglect, often of state coercion and the failure of the safeguards one supported on paper passed into law. disability rights groups and advocates have raised their voices wanting us to talk about the dangers of normalising assisted dying. for many this bill represents not a choice but a principal shift that undermines the value we place on protecting the vulnerable suet. this is the strongest to stand up and vote against this bill. passing this bill today will not improve palliative and hospice care, for me

my belief is that it will forfeit it. end of life is complicated. end—of—life care often isn't complicated enough. on reflection my mother—in—law deserved a frank, just a conversation on the risk of secondary illnesses and amputation that would follow with the automatic cancer treatment she was given in herfinal months of cancer treatment she was given in her final months of life. we should expect more agility from our nhs and while tang is the ultimate binary experience, end—of—life care should be more sophisticated, more personalised. surely these expectations with a system that endorses assisted dying will forfeit this, too. finally, as legislators, our responsibility is to protect the most vulnerable and consider all eventualities. we disagree on slippery slope arguments, but if this bill passes it will be a moment

of no return and that is why i am not prepared to support this bill. it is a privilege to speak in this debate today. the way in which the house has conducted itself on both sides of the argument is a credit to this place. i stand here as not only a medical practitioner having worked as a surgeon for about a decade, but also as a health care barrister, so i have looked at this debate from both sides of the arguments. i have been deeply moved by some of the stories i have heard by patients who are facing a terminal illness. i am also instructed by my own experiences, my personal experiences of my relatives, but also those patients who i feel is, because i did not give them the good death they deserved. it is true that we

can improve the palliative care offering in this country, but it is not a binary choice. it is not a choice of palliative care or assisted dying. it is a choice of having the option of how you want to have autonomy over your body at the end of your life. i understand the concerns in this house, but this is not the point to cancel the debates. this is the point to engage in the debates. this is the point we move it forward, the people can contribute to that in the committee stage and say how this can be improved and we can work together to make a societal change, to improve our society and support those that want that ultimate choice in those last days. t want that ultimate choice in those last da s. ., ., ., ., , ., last days. i am honoured to rise and thereby supported _ last days. i am honoured to rise and thereby supported this _ last days. i am honoured to rise and thereby supported this bill- last days. i am honoured to rise and thereby supported this bill and - last days. i am honoured to rise and thereby supported this bill and i - last days. i am honoured to rise and thereby supported this bill and i am| thereby supported this bill and i am proud to support my honourable

friend from spring valley. in my city of liverpool data shows that 74% of people are in favour of assisted dying. i have been privileged to correspond to so many of my constituents who have shared their views and personal stories with me spanning both sides of this important debate and i thank them all. as we have heard today there are strongly held beliefs on both sides of this house and i absolutely respect those with differing views to myself and i hope they respect my own views even if we disagree. long before i entered this place i had been an advocate of assisted dying with the appropriate safeguards to alleviate suffering. my mum care for my dad during his pro battle with cancer. sadly, not even the best palliative care could provide him with a good depth. i do believe that there is such a thing as a good death. this bill is sensible, safe

and compassionate, but above all else it places human dignity at its heart. in respect of palliative care, this bill is not an either slash over. ifully care, this bill is not an either slash over. i fully support improving palliative care and it has been proven that end—of—life care has improved in several countries because of assisted dying reform. i hope if the bill passes that the uk will also belong to that list. palliative experts including those opposed to law change admit that some people suffering is young the reach of even the best palliative care. i also don't believe if this bill finally becomes law that it will create a slippery slope. as the member for sutton coldfield said, in oregon, terminally ill adults had legal option for assisted dying for

more than 25 years and not once has it been expanded to include other groups. i won't. it been expanded to include other groups. iwon't. every it been expanded to include other groups. i won't. every year, it been expanded to include other groups. iwon't. every year, around 650 terminally ill people take their own lives. countless others who are more affluent make the choice of the long, arduousjourney more affluent make the choice of the long, arduous journey to switzerland, all without any protections in place. i don't want a choice to only be available to those who can afford to pay. that is not just or equitable. finally, just like many other private members of�* bills that have gone before, that have looked to bring about social reform such as abortion, divorce and the decriminalisation of homosexuality, this is an historic moment and an opportunity if taken to give real dignity to those who have reached the end—of—life and want a choice. while also respecting the views of those who don't want to take that choice. this

the views of those who don't want to take that choice.— take that choice. this is a really humblin: take that choice. this is a really humbling subject _ take that choice. this is a really humbling subject to _ take that choice. this is a really humbling subject to speak - take that choice. this is a really humbling subject to speak on. i j humbling subject to speak on. i would like to put on record my thanks to the member for bringing this issue to the house today. i have witnessed first—hand cruelty a terminal diagnosis brings. a single mother, my grandparents were like second grandparents to me. each struggle with their own incurable cancer diagnosis. a christmas dinner in 2019, my nan, who could no longer to, and was clearly in a great deal of pain, turned to me and said, she is ready to go. it is time now, she added. it was that night i reflected on how as a society we shy away from discussing death, we park it away, prioritise more immediate palatable subjects, but it is impacting members of our communities day in, day out. from terminal diagnoses to medical treatment and ultimately

their final days. medical treatment and ultimately theirfinal days. this really matters to me. in my maiden speech, i pledged to campaign for greater control in those final days and to afford those with terminal diagnoses the right to end their lives in dignity. this is not an argument against palliative care, some wonderful macmillan nurses made my nan's final months as comfortable as possible. i agree absolutely with many members that have raised the issue today that we must do more to support our palliative care sector. but good palliative care and a dignified end—of—life are not mutually exclusive. nor do i seek to control those who have strong religious beliefs. those who believe only god can take a life have complete freedom to wait for that moment, but that is their choice. many have legitimate... i'm not taking any interventions. many have

legitimate concerns about safeguarding and cause the most vulnerable should not be coerced into making a decision, but this bill introduces specific offences to this. this combined with sign off on two independent doctors, judicial oversight and a period of reflection means there are robust mechanisms in place to protect the most vulnerable. these details are vital. but so is our humanity. being with my nan in the warmth of her own home surrounded by a loving family after months of excruciating pain and no hope, i knew there and then that she should be able to choose her time to say goodbye to her family. she, should be able to choose her time to say goodbye to herfamily. she, like so many others, had had enough and understanding and a compassionate society should not stand in the way of her right to choose. you can see the profound impact this has had on me and my belief in the importance of end—of—life care and choice and it has enabled me to understand a

crucial distinction at the heart of this emotive debate. this is not about shortening life but about shortening death. for those members who support the principle of this bill, but who are concerned about the specifics are safeguards, i urge you to support it today at second reading. further debate can be had at committee stage if honourable members feel changes are required. this bill provides the choice to shorten death, a right that empathetic and considerate society should afford its citizens. t empathetic and considerate society should afford its citizens.— should afford its citizens. i thank the member— should afford its citizens. i thank the member and _ should afford its citizens. i thank the member and the _ should afford its citizens. i thank the member and the way - should afford its citizens. i thank the member and the way this - should afford its citizens. i thank- the member and the way this debate is being conducted. yesterday we buried a gmb officer, a really good friend, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, he beat it once but it took him in the end. earlier this week the cancer community lost nina lopez, who had stage four triple

negative breast cancer. she was given six months to live in 2018. six months— six years she taught us to dance through the worst days. as a patron of black women rising, a cancer charity that deals with black women and minority highest women through their cancerjourney, through their cancer journey, recently said through their cancerjourney, recently said to me that had been given six months to live i am ready to go, they said they had had a good life and are ready to go. six weeks later, they are now fighting to live. if we had focused on just the fact she was ready to go and wanted to die, it would have all been very different. there are parts of the law and we have had in the debate today that need changing around coercion, doctors being able to help people with end—of—life treatment, but i think those safeguards and discussions can be separated from assisted dying and assisted suicide, i don't see why we must have that as

a combined discussion. everyone has the right to die with dignity and compassion, whether this bill passes or not, i hope those conversations will continue after all, we are legislators and happy ability to do that. 80% of our constituents —— my constituents are against it and i will be voting against it. tt is constituents are against it and i will be voting against it.- will be voting against it. it is an honour to _ will be voting against it. it is an honour to follow _ will be voting against it. it is an honour to follow the _ will be voting against it. it is an honour to follow the member . will be voting against it. it is an l honour to follow the member and will be voting against it. it is an i honour to follow the member and i would like to pay tribute to the member, i think the way in which this debate has been conducted to date, the spirit is a tribute to her. it has been harrowing for all of us, i believe, but to us. the responsibility and privilege of making this decision on behalf of those people who go through experiences so harrowing that i don't think any of us, even though we have had their tails, can imagine. i put to the back of my

mind that i have been in a situation where i have waited to find out whether i would have a terminal diagnosis. i was lucky, it went the other way, and i don't know what i would have wanted but i know as i waited i thought about all of the things i wanted to do and might be denied, that people with a terminal diagnosis do. things they plan with their lives, the opportunity see their lives, the opportunity see their children grow, be married or perhaps their grandchildren, and i know that when we came here today, we were all aware of that and we came and thought seriously about it, about the implications and need for palliative care but i would say to the house, it is not ourjob to say palliative care needs to be improved and the nhs cannot cope therefore we should not do this. ourjob is to say, we need to improve palliative care so that the nhs can cope so that we can do this. on the safeguards that are included in this

bill, i believe they are there for those with religious beliefs, which means they cannot countenance this bill. i understand their concerns and respect them but i would not be standing here if i were not convinced that this bill means we have the best opportunity to provide a choice safeguarded by medical and legal professionals and protected from that slippery slope. because it happened in canada, because they did not have terminal diagnosis in the definition of the bill from the beginning. and we do. we should go on from today if we put this through to perhaps further scrutiny, tougher levels, that every piece of legislation in this place and the other must go through. i respect everyone's concerns and belief in this today. but i would also ask them to respect and ask all of you to respect those who have already been denied so much in their lives,

those things i said they might want that they might be denied. because we have a choice today. we can lead a national conversation which examines the issue before all of us, dissect this built line by line and check its effectiveness, or we can vote to close it down today. and then the country, the families suffering, they will be denied the light they want to see thrown on this issue, the voice they want their loved ones or perhaps themselves to have. we have many others watched loved ones die difficult deaths and we have over the past few weeks, months and years in politics paired harrowing tales and spoken to families with no choice but to watch their loved ones pass. in the most harrowing of circumstances. or make inexpensive and prohibitively expensive trip to switzerland alone. i cannot help those things they have been denied by the cruellest of fetes and i

would say surely, surely we cannot deny them choice at the end of life. i want to start by thanking my honourable friend for the incredibly sensitive and thoughtful way she has conducted the passage of this bill, consulting widely with terminally ill people and their families, medical staff, lawyers and faith leaders and those on both sides of the debate. for me, i had two very personal stories about why support a change in the law. last year's my dad's health took a turn for the worst. he lived with many diseases for some time and was given the dreaded years he only had a few months left to live. his last few weeks i would not have wished on anyone. he was in agony and suffering, breathing was difficult and was in such pain, i struggle to see him suffer so much. but the

nurses, doctors, carers and my incredible stepmum way without fault. his palliative care was excellent thankfully. he was able to die at home with me, my sister and my stepmum by his side. but seeing him suffer so terribly convinced me we had to have a change in the law so people who are terminally ill have a choice. my second story is from australia where my brother lives. my wonderful sister—in—law kelly sadly died of liver cancer that developed into bone cancer. she had a fractured left arm, pelvis, cancer in her spine, and at 54 she was far too young to die. her cancer was far too young to die. her cancer was particularly painful and unforgiving. as she lived in victoria, she was able to register for assisted dying. her, that was incredibly comforting. to know that if she needed to end only if, she could stop the suffering. she did not need it in the end. but she did have the option and in her darkest

days, herfearful days, that brought her and my brother incredible piece of mind. i have heard similar stories of suffering in the hundreds of e—mail sent to by constituents over the course of the last few months. people want and deserve access to both the best palliative care as well as a choice if they are terminally ill. the protections in the bill are strong. the evidence underpinning the bill is strong. i was there for my dad's final week when he was in so much pain and i was there right at the end holding his hand. what a privilege to be with him at the end. and to see him through. in memory of my dad and of kelly, i supported this bill and urged all of those across the house to support its too. this urged all of those across the house

to support its too.— to support its too. this is not an easy subject. — to support its too. this is not an easy subject, nor _ to support its too. this is not an easy subject, nor should - to support its too. this is not an easy subject, nor should it - to support its too. this is not an easy subject, nor should it be. i easy subject, nor should it be. because this is a matter of the taking of human life. the taking of human life sanctioned by the state. our nation through many wonderful charities, through government itself, reaches out compassionately to those who are threatening suicide. they are urged to use the services of the samaritans and to get all the help they can. i cannot square the circle where the state would then move to itself sanction suicide. indeed, to facilitate suicide. in fact, to

promote suicide. and to do it in respect of those who are intrinsically the most vulnerable in our society. anyone who gets a diagnosis of terminal illness, by reason of that is obviously vulnerable and many in consequence suffer depression and other difficulties. so they are amongst the most vulnerable in our society. and being vulnerable, they are amongst those most liable to fall under the foreign influence of coercion. now coercion comes in many forms and anyone who has listened to domestic abuse cases will know it

can be very insidious, very invasive, very persuasive because the co—author has the constant ear of those they wish to coerce. add into that mix the f fact that that person might field a burden. we have all heard all people say that they are a burden on society, on their family, and even when they are told caring for years not a chore it's a privilege, they still think it is a burden. if in that matrix there still is the pernicious influence of coercion, then i think the thought that people reach our recent, considered independent opinion is a fallacy. it is those people that this house should be protecting

above all. this bill does not protect people in that situation. we ought to to doctors, judge, well, a judge she doesn't have to, but he might decide to hold a zoom call with the applicant. he is not to know if sitting in the corner of the room out of camera is the co—author. so where is the protection in that? so where is the protection in that? so i do say to this house, this is an issue that comes to the very quick of herfundamental an issue that comes to the very quick of her fundamental duty to be the protectors of the most vulnerable. and there is no part of the state's functioning should be promoting assisting the end of life for people who could be on that occasion —— in that position and you will never know how many are in that

position. for me, i can't, will never know how many are in that position. for me, ican't, i will never know how many are in that position. for me, i can't, iwon't, vote for this bill. tt position. for me, i can't, iwon't, vote for this bill.— vote for this bill. it is an honour and privilege — vote for this bill. it is an honour and privilege to _ vote for this bill. it is an honour and privilege to speak- vote for this bill. it is an honour and privilege to speak in - vote for this bill. it is an honour and privilege to speak in this i and privilege to speak in this debate and to follow so many honourable colleagues who have made powerful contributions. i want to thank the honourable memberfor spring valley for all the work she has done on this bill, all the colleagues across the house have been working so diligently and all my colleagues who have written to me in their hundreds. and the experts who share their views with us. everybody in this chamber wants a good death, but we do know at the moment palliative care across the uk is chronically underfunded. it is very much a postcode lottery. i want to pay tribute to all the hospitals hospices working around the clock

doing an amazing job on stringent budgets, and especially ones in my constituency. we have to remember that although we are talking about very powerful stories, we legislate for all and that means making sure our legislation is steve and future proofed. things like presumed consent, i do have some concerns with the bill. when the door is openedin with the bill. when the door is opened in this bill my worry is it will be widened, as it has been in other places like the netherlands, belgium, canada. these things will happen. over 65 private members bill were passed in the last parliament. no bill had more than one session in committee. the average length of debate committee was 35 minutes, just over a quarter had many amendments made in it at all. i know

the honourable memberfor spring the honourable member for spring valley the honourable memberfor spring valley has said she is willing to extend it, and i welcome that and i will be pressing her on that to make sure it is safe. if the vote is going to be carried forward, scrutiny is crucial at all points of the bill coming forward. i note that others have talked about terminal illness today. pain is something that people live with every day. in my 30 years as a physiotherapist i have seen good deaths in bad debts and we all want to make sure we get the best for our constituents. we need to make sure end—of—life care is sorted and this debate has been viewed in that we have talked, i have talked to my family and i know my lovely mum has said, yes it is all very well talking about assisted dying, but we need to talk about assisted living as well because that is most important. quality of life

is most important. quality of life is crucial here. we need to make sure we are here to legislate for all and that is why i am voting against the bill today but i thank you for the opportunity to explain. i want to start by acknowledging and thanking the memberfor spain for bringing this debates forward. i'm going to vote against the bill today but i think it is an important discussion to be having. many constituents believe this is the right thing to do and there are many who feel this is not the right thing to do. i think that is why we have huge the very best of our parliament can do today. when i came to my conclusion it wasn't because of some sort of imagine a system, i know there are people going through some very difficult situations where they lose the normal faculties that they have what they can be an immense

pain. i also think we need to be clear about what we are talking about today. we are talking about the wholesale change of heart estate deals with death, and that is really important. that places a number of scenarios on people, on society, on the medical profession and for me it was a great risk some of our most vulnerable people and part of the reasons why i'm going to be voting against this today because i think the slippery slope arguments are very valid in terms of what risk they produce because we are talking about radicalising death and placing an undue burden on health professionals, legitimising a role for the state in the death process. i have yet to be convinced there are sufficient safeguards in place. if you talk about slippery slopes, if you talk about slippery slopes, if you look at canada, for example, you don't even need to have a terminal,

fatal illness. a mental illness would be acceptable reason for assisted suicide in 2027. clearly incarnated that pandora's box has opened and clearly we have the risk of embarking on that. i know the memberfor of embarking on that. i know the member for spring of embarking on that. i know the memberfor spring valley of embarking on that. i know the member for spring valley said there is almost a guarantee that this will change, but you can guarantee that future parliaments won't change the goalposts on this and you can guarantee that. the very fact that the argument for a slippery slope is exactly that, when you embark on this journey that is exactly where we may end up as the global start to move. there has been lots of conversation around the pnb process. lots of comments about the process. the honourable member can guarantee

there will be sufficient scrutiny. there has not been enough impact assessment. there has been very limited time to look at this piece of legislation. we are at serious risk of presenting something or passing something that will take immense harm and i worry that in the future we will look back at this where there has been abuse or coercion and some of our most vulnerable people will be coming back to this house to discuss the damage that we have caused today. qt damage that we have caused today. of order. i damage that we have caused today. of order- i seek— damage that we have caused today. of order. i seek your _ damage that we have caused today. of order. i seek your guidance _ damage that we have caused today. of order. i seek your guidance on - order. i seek your guidance on correcting _ order. i seek your guidance on correcting the _ order. i seek your guidance on correcting the record. - order. i seek your guidance on correcting the record. i- order. i seek your guidance on correcting the record. i sat i order. i seek your guidance on correcting the record. i sat in i order. i seek your guidance on i correcting the record. i sat in my speech i have consulted with the highest levels ofjudicial and highest levels of judicial and medical profession. highest levels ofjudicial and medical profession. i have received correspondence from the judicial office. whilst i have spoken to lawyers and judges i should not have implied that the serving judiciary have somehow implicated that they support the bill. they have not. they have made no public comments. i

apologise if i applied is anything to —— implied anything to the commentary. t to -- implied anything to the commentary-— to -- implied anything to the commenta . , ., , commentary. i rise today in support of this incredibly _ commentary. i rise today in support of this incredibly important - commentary. i rise today in support of this incredibly important bill. i i of this incredibly important bill. i have been contacted by hundreds of my constituents on both sides of this debate. i have had personal stories on the impact of this legislation and i want to put on record my thanks to everyone who has contacted me. ifundamentally contacted me. i fundamentally believe contacted me. ifundamentally believe in the right to choose attentive life and that is what this bill is about. giving dying people a choice in how they die. anyone who doesn't want an assisted death can choose not to have one and anyone who wants the reassurance of an option hazard. my constituents stories are stories they shared today by colleagues across the house who have shown me it is truly

unacceptable to maintain the status quo. without the change in the law, terminally ill people will continue to face the end of their life with a very limited range of options. some travel abroad for help to die but it's only an option with those who have the financial means to do so. j°y have the financial means to do so. joy said end—of—life shouldn't only be an option for those who are financially stable or desperate. death should be peaceful and pain—free and this bill gives the opportunity to make that a reality. there is no doubt in my mind is that this bill is to carefully considered by my honourable friend would be an improvement to the lives and liberties of my constituents who are terminally ill and i urge members across the sites to vote for it as a second reading. iwant across the sites to vote for it as a second reading. i want to end with the words of one of my constituents who said we have some of the most

amazing caregivers in this country who provide compassionate care in the most difficult of circumstances and that gives comfort, but i feel no one should be forced to know how the book ends when they were only part way through it without having the choice to put the book down and choose one with the better ending. final speech. we do not need to choose between palliative care and supporting those who want to make their deaths better. it is so fantastic to hear everyone from across every part of the chamber have a shared commitments to funding were palliative care and i hope that the secretary of state and his team will hear that and go further in knowing that they have put hours of thought and investing more. until they do we cannot condemn those who are at the end of their life to

terror, loneliness. whilst listening to this debate i have been concerned by some of the comments and i have read the bill when i have sat here. i concerned that mental health conditions would be allowed? it is not. the people might not be offered surgery or other treatment. they must. it is also worth noting that the suggestion of a person being coerced to be protected by forcing someone to disclose to the very family who may be coercing them. the witness in clause 5.2 .2 and the periods of reflection i like that independent person to be present at those appropriate times. i have already shared publicly my own family death journeys and i wear them here on myjacket. but today is not about them. today is about all of those people who need this. last

night i read the book die smiling about nigel�*sjourney to night i read the book die smiling about nigel�*s journey to take that test and it ends with his final journey and a facebook post before he made that agonising 20 our journey with his wife to switzerland. most people cannot afford that option. most do not want to put theirfamilies afford that option. most do not want to put their families at risk of prosecution. they want that on their own terms. gary lives in my constituency and he asked me to tell you his story of dying of liver cancer. he notes the end stages will be brutal and he wants to decide when enough is enough. he told me death does not worry me at all,... you're watching bbc news and our continuing coverage of the

assisted dying bill. what we are expecting, according to what the speaker said earlier in the day, is for frontbenchers to be called to speak, followed by the voting... i left palliative nursing as the emotional trauma became too much. there are neither... this bill is about compassion and humanity and we must listen to the voices of dying people. must listen to the voices of dying --eole. ., ., must listen to the voices of dying --eole. ., , , , people. today the focus is rightly on the backbenches _ people. today the focus is rightly on the backbenches so... - people. today the focus is rightly on the backbenches so. .. if- people. today the focus is rightly on the backbenches so... if not i people. today the focus is rightly. on the backbenches so... if not for me to make the case as we have not taken a collective view on the

opposition. i don't believe there is a perfect choice to be