A well-functioning democracy is one in which legislation is strengthened, not weakened, by opposition. Laws that stand the test of time are those that have been shaped by thorough debate, where dissenting voices are given space to highlight risks, inconsistencies, and unintended consequences. Without such scrutiny, legislation is more likely to be rushed, flawed, and open to abuse.
The introduction of the assisted dying legislation is one of the most sensitive debates in modern policymaking – for me as a Member of Parliament and for you – the voters. It touches on issues of personal autonomy, dignity, and suffering, but also on the fundamental principles of medical ethics, palliative care provision, and the potential for coercion of vulnerable individuals. These are not trivial concerns, and they deserve careful and considered examination and as a Parliamentarian, I am determined to ensure that the Bill currently going through Parliament gets exactly that.
As the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill moves through the legislative process, it is crucial that the committee stage provides a fair and proportionate hearing for all perspectives. From those called as witnesses thus far, the balance of opinion appears to be significantly weighted towards those in favour of the Bill. I hope that this will be ironed out but as things stand, this raises concerns that those with ethical, medical, and legal reservations—like many in Newcastle-under-Lyme who have written to me in recent weeks and months—are struggling to have their voices heard. If this imbalance persists, it will undermine the very mechanism designed to refine and improve proposed legislation.
A key example of this concern comes from disability advocacy groups such as Disability Rights UK, who have raised alarms about the accessibility and fairness of the committee process. They highlight the lack of engagement with disabled people’s organisations, the limited representation of opposing views, and the rapid pace at which the Bill is progressing, making it difficult for some of the most affected groups to participate meaningfully. These organisations stress the importance of considering issues such as the distinction between terminal illness and disability, the challenges in detecting coercion, and the potential risks of a rushed legislative process.
Concerns have been raised that the majority of witnesses with experience of assisted dying legislation in other countries who have been called to give evidence support the Bill. Meanwhile only a fifth of all witnesses set to be called oppose it. This imbalance raises questions about whether sufficient effort has been made to include perspectives from those with experience of similar laws who take a different view.
While some witnesses have suggested modifications to specific aspects of the Bill, the overall lack of opposing voices calls into question whether the process is broad enough to ensure thorough scrutiny. A fair and democratic legislative process requires that opposing views are given meaningful and adequate representation to identify weaknesses and potential problems within the proposed law.
Parliamentary committees exist to probe, to challenge, and to strengthen legislation. That process cannot be meaningful if it is one-sided. If the committee stage of the Assisted Dying Bill fails to hear from a sufficiently broad spectrum of perspectives, we risk passing a law that is not just flawed but one that could have deeply damaging consequences for society.
Regardless of personal views on assisted dying, we should all agree on one fundamental principle: that laws made in haste, without comprehensive scrutiny, risk causing harm. It is in the interests of justice, democracy, and the protection of the vulnerable that this Bill be properly examined, ensuring it is robust, fair, and free from unintended consequences.
The credibility of this Bill—and the confidence the public can place in it—will depend on how it is shaped in the coming weeks. If Parliament is to act responsibly—and in the interests of all people, from all communities and of all colours, creed and faiths—and none, we must guarantee that opposition voices are heard in full proportion. Only then can we ensure that whatever legislation is passed upholds both compassion and the highest standards of legal scrutiny.
I will be doing my bit to do right by the people of our country, and I know my colleagues will seek to do the same.
