Andrew Rosindell: I want no part in making the assisted dying bill, law. It’s morally wrong and bad legislation

Andrew Rosindell is MP for Romford

I have an unwavering belief in the sanctity of life. Human life is sacred, and all life has an inherent value, which Parliament has a duty to defend. That is why, when the Assisted Dying Bill returns to the House of Commons tomorrow, I will once again stand in firm opposition to it.

Naturally, many who have wanted to have their voices heard as part of this debate, including myself, have not had the opportunity to speak on this subject on the floor of the House, yet. However, I believe it is essential to voice the deep concerns I—and many of my constituents—hold about the direction this legislation is taking, particularly in light of the changes made during the Bill’s committee stage. These amendments have not strengthened the Bill’s safeguards, as some might have hoped. On the contrary, they have weakened them significantly.

I know those on the opposite side of this debate come to their conclusions based on care for the vulnerable and a desire to help alleviate unbearable pain.

Yet, even from this standpoint, were this Bill to pass, I believe it would inevitably begin a descent to a place of worse immoral pain and suffering, sanctioned by the state.

Once you legalise something, it becomes socially tolerable. Once it becomes tolerable, it becomes a social norm. Once it becomes a social norm, it pushes the boundaries further, to the point of being commendable—commendable to ‘stop being a burden on my family’ and to ‘stop being a burden on the NHS’.

There is nothing commendable about creating a legal mechanism whereby vulnerable people might be coerced into ending their lives prematurely.

Legislation in Canada, Australia and New Zealand have without doubt created a ‘slippery slope”, indeed in every single state where such legislation has been introduced, the grounds for accepted assisted suicides have widened to a degree that I believe most people would find deplorable.

In Belgium, children as young as nine have died by assisted suicide. In the Netherlands, a 29-year-old girl with suicidal thoughts ended her life through assisted suicide and in Canada, those with mental health issues will soon be able to end their lives by assisted suicide.  This is a very dark prospect indeed.

In my constituency of Romford, a constituent informed me that his wife was told she had six-months to live. Should assisted suicide have been an option, she would have taken it. Many, many years later, she is living a happy life with her friends and family.

These people need care from the state, not death, and none of the amendments which were voted on by colleagues are able to fully mitigate the risks. In fact, many restrictions are now notable by their absence following the Committee’s deliberations.

This Bill, particularly in its amended form, poses more questions than it answers, notably the judicial safeguard from the High Court Judge has been removed. This clause was heralded on by this Bill’s proponents, as one that would make this legislation immune from the abuses that similar legislation has replicated around the world.

It is astounding how in so many aspects of the Bill as presented, we have in fact seen a weakening of safeguards, and not their enhancing.

It is of grave concern to me and so many of my constituents that key details on how the service will be delivered, operated, and regulated, are not to be decided by our representative Parliament as a whole, but are left to be determined, away from scrutiny, by Ministers.

Clause 20 states that the Secretary of State is responsible for scoping out the independent advocates role. On first reading this sounds positive, but the Bill makes no provisions for the next of kin to be informed. It is shocking to imagine that a death of a loved one could occur, with the family only finding out after it has happened.

Not only am I concerned by what is in the Bill, but also by what is not.

Amendments that could have had a seriously protective impact on the scope of operation of this Bill, should it become law, were rejected.

The Bill, if passed, could pose a serious threat to the continued existence of vital palliative care, such as that provided by the wonderful St. Francis Hospice in Havering-atte-Bower, Romford.  I do not believe the cliché that this debate is not ‘a choice between palliative care and assisted suicide’. Participation in assisted suicide could very easily become a pre-condition for receiving public funding.

Yet, the Bill Committee explicitly rejected amendments which would have protected the freedom of institutions not to participate in assisted suicide if against their conscience, which seems to be to have been a rather rash, discriminatory, and indeed amoral response to reasonable recommendation.

Despite all the supposed safeguards, I fear this Bill does not sufficiently guard against a dark descent to the devaluing of life or the wider social and legal changes it will precipitate.

On the 13^th June, I want no part to play in the premature ending of life, especially in this version of the Bill, both widened in scope and weaker in safeguards.

The convictions of those in support of this Bill maybe righteous, but they would be better fulfilled by promoting enhanced palliative care, better mental health provision, and support for carers. I believe the answer to their concerns is not to promote premature death, but to enable a better quality of life to which all people have a right.