Statement on Assisted Dying Bill (Third Reading)

Bobby Dean MP shares his views on Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, commonly known as the Assisted Dying Bill – and explains why he votes in favour of it at the Third Reading.

For those who want to read why I voted in favour of the bill at the Second Reading, please read my statement here: https://www.suttonlibdems.org.uk/news/article/the-assisted-dying-bill.

My vote in favour at the Second Reading was always an “in-principle” vote and I remained committed to keeping an open mind during the more detailed Committee stage. I have enormous respect for my colleagues, representing both sides of the debate, who have taken hours upon hours of evidence over the past six months or so. I believe this kind of dedicated deliberation represents the best of how Parliament can work. 

Some of the arguments put forward during this stage have been genuinely challenging to my initial position and, as reported in The Times, I went into the final week of debate still considering how I would vote. In the end, I was assured that the amendments put forward strengthened the original bill and would deliver among the best safeguards in the world. I therefore continue to back the bill and voted in favour of it at the Third Reading.

One of the most challenging issues for me was the safeguards against internal and external coercion. People have rightly argued that it would be appalling if terminally ill people decided to end their lives because they felt a burden to others.

In the original iteration of the Bill, it was said that a High Court judge would rule on this matter. But evidence given to the Committee indicated that this would not be sufficient, and that further expertise was required to make such assessments. Now the Bill proposes that a panel made up of two independents doctors, a psychiatrist or social worker and a legal professional as chair would determine if coercion were present. I am satisfied that this multi-disciplinary approach strengthens this element of the Bill. 

Alongside the practical considerations, there was still one big ethical question for me – that is whether, in the round, this Bill would make things better or worse for dying people.

I have always been clear-eyed about just how intolerable the status quo is. There are many people for whom palliative care will always be out of reach and there are some who chose to end their lives in undignified and unsafe ways already. Rejecting this Bill does not change that terrible situation for them.

However, my personal challenge was to determine whether providing this option of an assisted death to the terminally ill would provide compassionate relief or a further stress in an unimaginably traumatic time. My conclusion is that providing the safeguards for the vulnerable are sufficiently strong, which I believe they are, then ultimately this is about the free will of that individual. This Bill is not about someone choosing whether to live or die, but whether they get a say in how they die.

I know from the volume of correspondence I have had from both sides of this debate that I would always disappoint a large group of my constituents, whichever way I went on this issue. I hope that whatever view you hold, you can appreciate my honesty and my commitment to considering all the issues with the care it deserves.