Sarah Olney has published her (well argued) letter about the Bill in Richmond Park News and on her website. It is just the kind of issue that should be debated locally and not just among those who subscribe to her LibDem Newssheet. 

She writes:

I have decided to vote against the Second Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill this afternoon. 

I have taken a long time to reach this decision, and it has been informed by a great deal of reading, consultation and – above all – correspondence with constituents who have made passionate and very personal cases on both sides of the debate. I am extremely grateful to everybody who has taken the time to share their thoughts with me and I have carefully read every email and considered what each constituent had to say. I am particularly grateful to people who shared difficult and painful experiences of losing loved ones, and of watching them suffer intensely at the end. I want to express my heartfelt sympathies to you all, and also my sincere thanks for your bravery in reliving those very difficult times. I can assure you that your messages were both appreciated and instructive. 

I know that I am instinctively against the idea of assisted dying. I believe that as long as there is the ability to have meaningful human interaction and the capacity to feel joy, then life is always worth living. But, I am comfortable living in a world where people have access to options that I wouldn’t choose, especially where people would otherwise suffer a material harm. 

There is a clear case for assisted dying. To ease the passage of those who are experiencing great pain and distress at the end of life and to give them some peace of mind and control over their final days. I am persuaded that there are situations where the law should not stand in the way of allowing people to choose this. 

However, I am concerned that if we change the law to allow assisted dying, the consequences are difficult to predict. If assisted dying is allowed, will those suffering from a terminal illness feel that, by not choosing assisted dying, they are instead choosing to continue living, and choosing to be (as they may perceive it) a burden on their families? I cannot assess how likely or widespread this feeling may be. But I do worry that these concerns may weigh more heavily on the elderly and the disabled. 

So, it is not easy to see which path is likely to lead to the greatest reduction of harm. How can we balance the rights of people to end their lives with dignity against the danger that people may feel under unwarranted pressure to make that choice? 

It is clear to me that we should proceed with great care and caution in our framing of this legislation. The worst possible outcome would be a flawed bill that potentially puts vulnerable people at risk. 

I have a huge amount of respect for Kim Leadbeater, the MP for Spen Valley who has brought this Bill before Parliament. I am grateful to her for the respectful and constructive way that she has conducted the lead up to today’s debate, and for her brave and passionate opening speech in the Chamber this morning. However, I believe that there are flaws in the way that the Bill has been drafted. 

If the Bill passes at Second Reading today, there will be opportunities at Committee Stage and Report Stage to amend it and to address some of its shortcomings. But we can only amend the original draft. A government bill would have had extensive pre-legislative consultation and scrutiny before the initial draft came before the House. Private Members’ Bills frequently fail because they run out of time to complete all their stages in the time allocated, and I am concerned that a desire to get the stages completed in the limited time available will take precedence over the need to get the legislation framed properly. This is a flaw of the PMB process as much as of the Bill itself. 

But it doesn’t give me confidence that we have time to fully consider all the implications of the proposed law or that the process will enable us to be sure that the vulnerable are fully protected. Given the profound implications of getting the legislation wrong, and the inherent risks of the legislative process, I have decided to vote against this bill today. I know that this will be an enormous disappointment for the many constituents who have written to me to urge me to vote in support. Many people have formed a firm view in favour of assisted dying in response to a traumatic experience of watching a loved one die, and I know that those people may think that I don’t understand how it feels. 

I do understand. By coincidence, tomorrow – 30th November – is the anniversary of the awful day that my husband and I had to decide to switch off our son’s life support machine. We will be grieving his loss over the weekend, wishing we could relive that final hour one more time, and fruitlessly wondering what kind of person he would be now if he had survived. But we can grieve in peace, knowing that there was no choice, because his life was over. 

I am sorry – truly sorry – if my vote today doesn’t reflect how you feel about your own experience of grief and loss. But it does reflect mine. And I hope you don’t doubt the depth of compassion and empathy I feel for the bereaved and grieving. 

I am happy to continue to correspond with constituents who would like to share their thoughts. If the vote passes at Second Reading, then there will be more stages to come, and more opportunities for me to reflect upon the decisions to be made. I welcome all and every message that constituents wish to share. 

Sarah Olney MP

See also yesterday’s post above