I was not called to speak at the Third Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. This is what I wanted to say:
- Rosie Duffield
- Jun 27
- 5 min read
Over the last few years, we’ve been very aware of this issue, partly due to the extremely well-organised, glossy, well-funded campaigns run by Dignity in Dying and their sister organisation, Compassion in dying.
We’ve gone along to these events where they show us convincing pie-charts and statistics on maps of our constituencies, pointing out that 75% plus of our Constituents support what they term the right to die. And perhaps we’ve been persuaded by those numbers? Several years ago, those findings probably were pretty accurate, back when they were based on replies given to a vague moral question about being able to choose, back when there was no change that we’d be holding another debate on this issue so soon after the last. The conversation has moved on hugely since then, and those vague conceptual questions have now led us to this Private Members Bill.
Every single member will now be asked to make an irreversible choice, putting our names, one way or another, to one of the biggest social changes to be decided here in our lifetimes.
There is no room for mistakes, this is it, this is a matter of life and death.
Every single person who votes for this legislation has to be not just 100% sure, but 101% sure that they have no doubts whatsoever. No unanswered questions, no ‘what ifs’; no uncertainty at all.
If we change our minds, have even a single second of doubt or regret during the walk through the ‘Aye’ lobby, or while watching the results played back on tonight’s News bulletins then it will simply be too late.
There is no second change, and it will come down to every single individual and every individual’s conscience. Have you sat quietly today and searched your mind and heart for even a trace, or a quiet whisper of doubt?
Are there unresolved questions about those with anorexia, non-verbal people, those with learning difficulties, downs syndrome, extreme depression, crippling anxiety, concerned ethnic minorities, or every single disabled activist who has told us we must vote against this Bill today?
If this place were representative of society, we would have at least 70 visibly disabled colleagues, dozens of wheelchair users would be voicing their own many and varied views. But instead, in the shameful reality of our unequal and unbalanced Parliament, it is our duty to represent those who cannot speak here today.
By definition, this room contains 650 privileged people. We earn a lot of money and have privilege and advantages not available to most of those we represent.
We have been told, time and again, that there are sufficient safeguards, yet disabled activists still say ‘No’!
We have been told time and time again that there is no ‘slippery slope’, yet every other nation which introduced this – including our neighbouring EU countries such as the Netherlands has seen that notorious slippery slope grow(ing) more and more treacherous.
Recently, concern has been building that physically healthy young women are using the Euthanasia services to end their lives due to treatable mental health conditions that can in no way be described as ‘terminal’ women aged just 17, 21 and 28 years old are among recent cases.
Does any Member here imagine that that was the intention of the Bill when first introduced in the Netherlands?
Does any Member here imagine it was initially intended to include children, as it does now?
Professor Theo Boer, who is now against the Assisted Suicide in the Netherlands and who gave his expert evidence to the Health and Social Care Select Committees in-depth inquiry, says: “I once believed it was possible to regulate and restrict killing to terminally ill, mentally competent, adults with less than 6 months… moreover, by taking this bold step I believed we could regulate suicide and death in this way that would curtail those all too familiar cases where someone ends their own life. I was wrong!"
He adds, “if even the most well-regulated and monitored system cannot guarantee that assisted dying remains a last resort, why would Great Britain be more successful?”
Many people have also looked across to Canada, whose MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying) organisation now frankly resembles a warning from a dystopian horror movie.
Some of us have heard the testimony of Alicia Duncan whose mother, Donna, was suffering from complex and undiagnosed symptoms following a car crash. Alicia and her sister were horrified to learn that mothers’ mental ill health was NOT deemed a reason to stop her proceeding with MAID – and she certainly had no terminal physical conditions.
Despite doing all in their power, her daughters were unable to stop her death, and her depression meant that her decision to stop eating moved her to the fast track lane as she was re-categorised as being physically, not just mentally ill and she died within just 48 hours which her devastated daughters only discovered when it was too late.
Alicia’s story was one that struck me particularly hard as it contained elements of potential coercion, and coercive control is something I have experienced and spoken about in relation to domestic abuse.
Other harrowing accounts of those in Canada whose solve-able social issues, such as homelessness and debt, were considered sufficient reason to make them eligible for assisted suicide, should have sent shivers down the spines of all who watched the actor and activist reveal those examples in the recent BBC documentary, ‘Better Off Dead’. Of course, I must declare a personal interest as my talented filmmaker partner was the Documentary Director. At the start of the project, neither of us held especially fixed views and we were open to leaving the potential pros and cons of any future like potential legislation.
Naturally, I have a very great deal of sympathy for my constituents like Diana who have so honestly and emotionally shared their family’s heartbreaking stories and would like the law to change to alleviate others’ suffering. But our most urgent and vital duty and responsibility must be, and is, to protect any and every person who needs us to do so and guard them from the unintended consequences of undoubtedly well-meaning legislation such as this bill.
I cannot support or vote for this Bill as I have so many serious doubts, unanswered questions, and so many ‘what ifs’.
And those statistics of constituents’ views? They’ve shifted dramatically so that by for the majority of emails and messages now express serious concerns and are asking me to vote against.
I urge every member who has any doubt and whose constituents are against this Bill, to vote it down today as they may seriously regret doing otherwise.
Comentários