DEFEAT OF ASSISTED SUICIDE BILL WELCOMED BY
FIONA BRUCE MP
Fiona Bruce MP welcomed
the House of Commons decisive rejection of assisted suicide, following a 330
votes to 118 defeat of the Assisted Dying (No 2) Bill. The result was also
welcomed by disability rights groups and doctors organisations, which had
opposed the change in the law.
Describing the result
as a victory for the vulnerable, Fiona Bruce MP said there should now be a
greater extension of high-quality palliative care, calling for ‘assisted living
not assisted dying’, and calling on Parliament to support the Access to
Palliative Care Bill, which has been brought forward by Prof Illora Finlay,
past president of the British Medical Association. She said that ‘better
palliative care is the answer of the future. Euthanasia is the answer of the
past.’
Speaking after the debate,
Fiona Bruce MP said:
‘Parliament has made
its voice clearly heard today, as MPs from across the parties voted down the
Assisted Dying (No 2) Bill. The most vulnerable, as well as the Courts, now
have absolute clarity that assisted suicide is not the route this country will
go down. That is a victory for the vulnerable, not least the many disabled
people who have campaigned so passionately against this dangerous Bill. This
Bill proposed that suicide was sometimes an answer, and that we should
sometimes respond to a person’s suicidal feelings with a lethal injection. That
is against everything that our
healthcare system is built on regarding the value of life and protecting the
vulnerable, and would have been a backward step in an age where we are finally beginning to properly
tackle issues of mental health.’
‘The Commons vote
represented a truly compassionate affirmation by MPs of the safeguards that
exist in law to successfully protect patients in a vulnerable position from
undue pressure to end their lives.
It defends
the essential truth that there are better
answers to the suffering of the terminally-ill than helping them to kill
themselves. Doctors from places, like Oregon and the Netherlands, where
euthanasia is legal, warned the UK not to make the same mistake
–
and Parliament has heeded their warnings.’
‘Our focus must be on improving the
standard and the availability
of
palliative care to all
patients
who need it. The ‘Access to Palliative Care’ Bill proposed by Lady Finlay of
Llandaff, a leading palliative care expert and immediate past President of the
British Medical Association, is the best opportunity for progressive reform in
this area, and truly worthy of Parliamentary support.’
·
The
legalisation of assisted suicide is opposed the Royal Colleges of Physicians,
General Practitioners, and Surgeons, the British and World Medical
Associations, elderly and disabled organisations, and right-to-life advocates.
·
It
was revealed earlier this week by polling experts that suggestions by the lobby
group Dignity in Dying’s that 82% of people supported a change in the law were
deeply flawed.
·
Prof
Finlay’s Access to Palliative Care Bill is currently awaiting its 2nd
Reading. Further details can be found here: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/accesstopalliativecare.html
"No Ordinary Debate , No
Ordinary Day in Parliament , No Ordinary Decision"
As has been said many times since yesterday's second reading debate on the Assisted Dying ( No 2) Bill, we saw Parliament at its finest then. I have not sat through a debate in which so many Members of Parliament have come determined to listen so intently or been so determined to weigh up seriously all the contributions of fellow Parliamentarians. Nor a debate where so many were clearly not only scouring their consciences, but also plumbing the depths of some of their most heartfelt experiences, both personal and professional. Too, it was clear that MPs had not only received, but also carefully read and were considering the many hundreds of emails, cards and letters from concerned constituents received prior to the debate. A great proportion of these were individually written - a far cry from the identikit duplicates organised by lobby groups we all too commonly receive. So many of these letters were relevant, detailed, reasoned, and yet also from the heart. Large numbers of MP colleagues had visited their local hospice, held public meetings, met with concerned disabled groups, or met concerned constituents at surgery in preparation for the debate to gain as much practical understanding of the issues involved and listen to those with direct and relevant experience.
And so as the morning progressed
and colleagues spoke, you sensed from the gathering of contributions a
collective determination to do all we could to understand the complexities of
this subject: a wanting and willing to understand it in depth and hear all
perspectives, before making a decision. A decision which would not be made
merely by basing it on a simplistic single figure produced through a flawed and
unrepresentative poll initiated by a well-funded lobby group supporting the
Bill. Our constituents, indeed the country, deserved far better than that.
Almost without exception,
speeches were thoughtful, profound and moving (not always, however much we
flatter ourselves, characteristics of our Parliamentary debates!).
Baroness Ilora Finlay, watching
throughout from the Gallery, remarked afterwards that it was clear from the
debate how in touch MPs are with the people they represent: from references to
constituents ' experiences, their direct and personal knowledge of their local
hospices and the respect MPs have for those who work in them.
We heard time and again of
colleagues' personal experiences of final days with loved ones. And of days
which were thought to be final - doctors having advised that death was
imminent, only for the patient to recover and live for some considerable time
longer - in one case, twenty years longer. It became clear that the
stipulation in the Bill that an individual seeking help to commit suicide
should be less than six months from death was impracticable, and so
meaningless.
We listened respectfully to
several Members with professional experience in the medical profession,
including Dr Liam Fox, Dr Sarah Wollaston, Dr Philippa Whitford, and cancer
nurse Maria Caulfield, of the invidious position doctors would be placed in if
this Bill were passed. Of the impossibility of their ascertaining, whether an
individual has a ' settled ' and ' voluntary ' intent to end their life. Of
having the unenviable task of endeavouring to look into their patients 'hearts
and minds and still then not being able to discern the often subtle pressures
upon them. As Dr Fox said, this Bill would overturn 2000 years of the
Hippocratic Oath; it would nullify a medic's core objective to 'do no harm’.
We heard from colleagues with backgrounds in the legal profession of the flawed nature of the Bill, of the need to be mindful to do justice especially for the most vulnerable in society, of the inadequacy of the so called safeguards in the Bill, of the involvement of a High Court Judge as adding nothing of protective value, of the very real likelihood that if passed it would open the door to further, broader legislation, as in the very few other countries that have bought this in.
We heard still other colleagues speak from a spiritual perspective -Caroline Spelman, Sir Edward Leigh, Stephen Brine. Of the importance of remembering that each life is of intrinsic value; that this should always be the kind of society we should aspire to be. That dependency on others and interdependency with others are part and parcel of life from birth on, at different stages, for us all, with giving and receiving, dependence and service, an integral part of life's pattern, so that no one should feel that at a stage when they are dependent on others, they should consider ending their life prematurely.
No one in the Chamber said - as
we so often hear - that 'this is one of the most serious issues we have ever
discussed in this place'. That was obvious, as the quiet, restrained
atmosphere, one of truly active listening, testified. This was indeed serious
business, and we were taking it seriously. Absent was the usual party political
bickering across the Chamber. So too were the all-too-common politicians' jabs
or jibes. We were in this together, across the parties, no whips direction
involved, and together we would be answerable for our decision. No one spoke
for the sake of speaking. We were there primarily to listen. The House
was moved when John Woodcock was called to speak, and responded by saying he
had come not to speak but to listen to the entire debate, being genuinely
undecided. Not the only such Member that day, and by some measure. Many who did
speak had spent much time considering the issue and preparing; almost all made
contributions of great value, whether seasoned Parliamentarians, or newbies.
All were listened to by a House never seen in recent times so full on a Friday
for a Private Members Bill - when contributors to debates can often be counted
on the fingers of two hands. Cabinet Ministers came in and sat on the front
bench, quietly listening.
And when towards the latter part of the debate, Ben Howlett spoke and said that he had come into the House that day intending to support the Bill, but "listening to speeches made by other Members ...has completely changed my mind", I for one believed he was not alone, and that others, many undecided at the outset, now felt the same. Of course, the Bill had its supporters, and the House listened to them as carefully as to any, not least Rob Marris, the Bill's promoter, and the former DPP, Keir Starmer, who had framed the guidelines which would be overturned if the Bill were, as he hoped, passed. But they were in the minority. As the debate drew to a close - and as, with an unprecedented eighty three members having put down to speak, the Deputy Speaker requested short speeches - speaker after speaker in a swift succession of two minute contributions voiced concerns about the Bill. The House had come to its collective decision. Indeed, when the votes were cast and counted, not only did it become clear that just under four hundred and fifty MPs had attended, on a Friday, to consider the issue, over half of current MPs had voted against it. No cause for triumphalism - there was none of the usual cheering at the result, and quite right too. The House quietly dispersed. Members had done their business and their duty, conscientiously and with dignity.
Our challenge now is to ensure
that the right solution to caring for our elderly and vulnerable, which is
investing much more in palliative and holistic end of life care, is not just
talked about but implemented. Baroness Finlay has introduced a Private Members
Bill into the Lords which currently awaits its second reading, The Access To
Palliative Care Bill. This aims to ensure that high quality palliative care is
properly resourced and available for all who need it. Passing that Bill would
be our best legacy from yesterday. “
Assisted Dying (No2) Bill 11th September
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) says that there has been a lot of misunderstanding about the Bill. There is no misunderstanding at all: the Bill would authorise doctors to provide a lethal substance for people to kill themselves with. That substance is not a “medicine”, as the Bill disingenuously describes it, but a poison. No wonder doctors oppose it, and we in this House should do so too.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West says that the Bill sets out a clear procedure with multiple safeguards. What clear procedure? What safeguards? Let us look at the Bill. It states that doctors must be satisfied that a patient has a settled and voluntary intent to end his or her life. How should doctors be satisfied that the intent is settled? The Bill does not say. Would they need to see the patient once or twice, or over what period of time? The Bill is silent. What steps should doctors take to be satisfied that the intent is voluntary, and that there is no coercion behind the patient’s request? The Bill is silent. Given that Action on Elder Abuse reports that there are over half a million reported incidents of physical and emotional elder abuse in the UK each year, the Bill should be clear on that critical issue, but it is not.
Simon Hoare: It is actually worse than my hon. Friend suggests. Given the very low number of GPs who have indicated that they would seek a licence, it is more than likely that both doctors seeking to make the certification would not know the patient and therefore would not be able to tell whether they were more or less depressed or to assess their rate of degeneration. That is the fundamental weakness of the Bill.
Fiona Bruce: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those doctors could not be sure, and they would not be able to assess the even more subtle internal pressure that an individual might feel to express a wish to end their life because they feel a burden. What special procedure is there in the Bill for the particularly vulnerable in our society, such as those with mental health or learning difficulties? There is none. No wonder Mencap and Scope oppose it.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West speaks of multiple safeguards. Where are they in the Bill? I do not see them. Does he mean the provision that
11 Sep 2015 : Column 671
the decision should be referred to a High Court judge? If this was not so serious, it would be laughable. The judge would not have to meet the patient; they would only have to confirm the doctors’ decision, and in a time frame of 14 days, making independent scrutiny all but impossible. Absent will be the detailed, rigorous examination that the family court gives to life and death issues, such as turning off a life-support system. Gone will be the investigative powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions under the current legislation to rigorously investigate cases of assisted suicide referred to him. Removed will be the strong deterrent against malicious behaviour that the current law provides.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con): The Bill would require the dying person to make a declaration, and that declaration would have to be witnessed. Quite rightly, the witness cannot be a member of the dying person’s family, but they can be a beneficiary of their will. Is my hon. Friend as concerned about that as I am?
Fiona Bruce: I am extremely concerned about that “conflict of interest”, as we in this place might call it.
Vulnerable patients would be left in a weaker position than they are now. The inclusion of a judge to effectively countersign a form confirming the doctors’ decision adds no protective value whatsoever. But wait; here in clause 8 is a provision that would allow the Secretary of State to issue at some future date—not before we have passed the Bill—a code of practice. A code of practice would relate to such critical matters as assessing a patient’s capacity or what counselling should be given, or recognising that depression might impair a patient’s judgment.
In other words, the Bill says to us, “Parliament, decide now and sign this blank cheque, and at some future date as yet unknown some safeguards may be considered.” That is wholly unsatisfactory. That will be too late. The deed will have been done. We will have changed the law. We will have crossed the Rubicon, from killing people being illegal to killing people being legal. That is not doing justice. We are here to protect the most vulnerable in our society, not to legislate to kill them. This Bill is not merely flawed; legally and ethically it is totally unacceptable and we must reject it.
