The MP for Slough will vote against a bill to legalise assisted dying in the UK, saying he has concerns that it will be 'inadequate in practice'.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would apply to England and Wales, and is set to have its first Commons debate and vote today (Friday, November 29). 

Some MPs in Berkshire such as Matt Rodda, MP for Reading Central, and Olivia Bailey, MP for Reading West and Mid Berkshire, were still considering how they would vote as of yesterday. 

Now Tan Dhesi, a Labour MP for the area, has said he has arrived at his decision after 'careful and thorough reflection'.

He added: "While I appreciate the immense pain and suffering endured by some in the later stages of their life, I ultimately do not want to vote for legislation which may lead to the unnecessary and avoidable deaths of others, who may fall through the safeguards of this legislation.

"I certainly would not want that on my conscience. 

"Theory and practice are often very different. What may work in theory, I fear often proves inadequate in practice."

The proposed legislation says that anyone who wants to end their life must be expected over 18 and live in England and Wales, have been registered with a GP for at least 12 months, and be expected to die from a terminal condition within six months. 

They must also have mental capacity to make the choice, and be doing so free from coercion or pressure. 

The individual must then make two separate declarations, witnessed and signed, about their wish to die. 

Two independent doctors need to certify that the person is eligible, and finally a High Court judge would need to rule on the request. 

 

Here's Slough MP Tan Dhesi's letter in full

"Words matter, terminology matters, and I know that even the name of this Bill and wider issues are hotly contested. For some it’s the choice of assisted dying, for others it’s assisted suicide and I completely understand the sensitivities surrounding this. 

"Life is precious, and this piece of legislation is quite literally a matter of life and death. Considering this, it’s natural that emotions are heightened with people on both sides holding strong ethical and moral views. It’s exactly why I have given this serious issue a great deal of thought.  

"While I appreciate the immense pain and suffering endured by some in the later stages of their life, I ultimately do not want to vote for legislation which may lead to the unnecessary and avoidable deaths of others, who may fall through the safeguards of this legislation. I certainly would not want that on my conscience. 

"Theory and practice are often very different. What may work in theory, I fear often proves inadequate in practice.  

"I worry this Bill would forever change the relationship and power dynamic between doctors and their patients. Many doctors I have spoken to feel that their primary duty is to save lives, rather than be involved in a process that ends life. 

"This Bill will mean doctors making determinations on how long a person has left to live, when doctors themselves admit that their powers of prediction are poor when it comes to estimating a person’s life expectancy. 

"We know that a person’s health outcomes are often linked to their social and economic situation. I therefore cannot ignore the risk that assisted dying, if allowed, may become a class issue, leading to the unnecessary deaths of those living in poverty. Those in less privileged positions, struggling to pay their bills and cope with the day-to-day demands of life, would be acutely impacted by the Bill; feeling they would be better off ending their lives, so as to not be a burden on their families.  

"For me, the most moving testimonies and evidence were from disabled people and charities supporting the most vulnerable. The fact that many of them were incredibly concerned about potentially being a burden on their loved ones and society at large has weighed heavily on my mind. Hearing their perspectives and how they felt the Bill could be a slippery slope, eventually leaving them with little option but to be explicitly or implicitly coerced into taking the decision to end their lives, has left a lasting impression on me. 

"This is not an unfounded concern. As we’ve seen in other countries, what starts off as assisted dying for those with terminal illness, is gradually expanded. We see cases of people ending their lives not because of terminal illness, but because of chronic or mental health conditions, which could be treatable, manageable or improvable. 

"We, as a society, must ensure that people can die comfortably, with dignity and respect. What became clear during my conversations with terminally ill people who support this Bill is that often their desire is not to have an assisted death, but rather to have much better care at the end of their life. 

"Our NHS is sadly in crisis, including how it is providing palliative care to those who would be affected by this Bill. Hospices that provide a significant amount of end-of-life care are grappling with a grave funding crisis. I strongly believe that these structural problems need comprehensively addressing, before we embark upon this legislative path.  

"My sincere gratitude to everyone who has taken the time to express their views to me, and I hope in explaining the reasoning for my vote, you can understand how I have come to this position."