Grantham and Bourne MP Gareth Davies explains why he will vote against the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

This afternoon (Friday) the House of Commons will vote on the third and final reading of a hugely significant piece of legislation. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill seeks to allow adults in England who are terminally ill to be provided with assistance to end their own lives.

This legislation was first introduced by the Kim Leadbeater MP, the Labour MP for Spen Valley, as a Private Members’ Bill. Since then, I am grateful to all residents in our area who have written to me to share their views and, in many cases, to share their own experience. I know that there are many more locally who will hold a view on this issue and so I wanted to take some time to set out my reasons for why I will be voting against this Bill today.

Firstly, I want to make clear that I do not doubt the good intentions of those campaigning for this change and I would never underestimate the distress endured by those who are terminally ill or suffer chronic pain.

My central objection to the Bill is that, whatever the specific ‘safeguards’ involved, its impact would be no less far-reaching. Whatever the intention, the effect would be a fundamental change in the way we view life as a society. Rather than being something of intrinsic worth, the value of life would instead begin to depend on circumstance and be weighed against other factors.

This poses an existential risk to the most vulnerable in our community and would hinder ongoing efforts both to improve palliative care and develop lifesaving medicines.

If life itself is devalued, then so too are the ongoing efforts of those who seek to save lives. From cancer research to palliative care, we would not have dedicated such vast resources, and made such great strides in medical science, if we had not placed an ultimate value on life throughout centuries.

In addition, I have significant practical concerns. Even in the best of circumstances, I do not believe our healthcare system, nor the ‘expert panel’ which has replaced judicial oversight, could guarantee that no death resulted from misdiagnosis, coercion, or any other form of error or injustice.

I am concerned too that this Bill only represents the start of the process for many. Whether in Canada, Belgium or the Netherlands, in almost all other jurisdictions where it has been introduced, the scope of assisted dying has steadily expanded.

Since January, the Bill has been at its Committee Stage where a small number of MPs representing the political make-up of the Commons were selected to gather regularly until the end of March to go through the Bill line-by-line. The last time this Bill was voted on, many MPs raised concerns over the practicality and safeguards of this Bill, almost all of which have not been addressed at Committee Stage.

Whether this Bill eventually becomes law or not, our focus must always be on supporting those who are terminally ill and their families to live as peacefully and comfortably as possible, cherishing what time they have left. I do not believe that this Bill is conducive to this aim.