Parliament’s longest serving MPs, Sir Edward Leigh and Diane Abbott, have made a joint plea for colleagues to reject assisted dying legislation, and allow for more time to consider the “immense complexities” of the issue.
The Father and Mother of the House are expected to argue there has been insufficient scrutiny of the law in a letter published in The Guardian on Thursday.
According to the newspaper, the letter argues that pressure groups behind the proposed changes could be taking advantage of “an inexperienced new Parliament”.
Expanding on his argument in the Commons, Sir Edward called for a decision on assisted dying to be made “from a state of knowledge”.
“I would like to know more, and I think the public would like to know more,” the Conservative former minister added.
MPs will have the opportunity to debate and likely vote on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on November 29.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Health Secretary Wes Streeting have revealed they will vote against the Bill.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has declined to say which way he will be voting because he does not want to “put pressure” on other MPs.
In the Commons on Wednesday, Sir Edward warned that older people could feel obligated to choose the option of assisted dying “because there are not enough resources to pay for them in the present system”.
The MP for Gainsborough said: “I do have a dream, and we all have, that in the years to come, when our time comes, we will be given the care that we need. But there is so much doubt and uncertainty about this.
“So many people, of course, quite understandably, take a position from a point of principle. They may believe fundamentally from a religious point of view in right to life, or they may have a libertarian point of view, which states that everybody has a right to control their own destiny.
“But surely also it is important that if we are to make a decision, which will probably be one of the most important in this Parliament, that we do so from a state of knowledge.
“That we have a hospice movement and an NHS which is funded, fully funded, to care for our old people. That we can assure all people that in this country, this civilised nation, we will ensure that the passing of everybody is as painless and as peaceful as possible.”
Sir Edward used a ten minute rule motion on the Terminal Illness (Relief of Pain) Bill, to call for the vote on assisted dying to be pushed back by “a year or two”.
“I’m moving this (Bill) today deliberately 10 days before the assisted suicide bill is debated, because I want to highlight a real problem: there has simply not been enough time to consider the immense complexities of the issue,” he said.
He added: “The debate in 10 days’ time could be seen as a useful airing of the issues. Then in a year or two, we could make a measured and well informed decision.”
Sir Edward argued the issue should not be brought forward as a Private Member’s Bill, but as a Government bill, because this would come with an impact assessment.
He added: “All hospices currently assist people to die as peacefully and painlessly as possible, they do not do that by administering lethal drugs.
“So much of the impetus in favour of assisted suicide comes from an understandable fear of dying in pain. Now, talking to palliative care nurses and doctors, I am told that in nearly every case, experienced practitioners can make our passing bearable.
“But I would like to know more, and I think the public would like to know more, and we would like to know more about the passing of people with degenerative diseases.”
He continued: “We need a national debate on a new social contract for a ballooning, frail and elderly population with multiple health needs.
“I have long argued that we can only do so with social insurance, we have to pay more for our care in old age.
“But what we do not want is pressure for assisted suicide for old people, because there are not enough resources to pay for them in the present system. Again, we need much more information on this whole area.”
Leading barristers including former director of public prosecutions (DPP) Sir Max Hill KC criticised the current system at a meeting organised by the Dignity in Dying campaign group in Parliament later on Tuesday.
Sir Max said there had been 27 cases in the last five years where he was asked to consider charging assisting or encouraging suicide and just one had been charged.
He said the regime as it stands, in which the DPP needs personally to approve the charging of anyone with such an offence, leaves evidential difficulties and “a significant cohort of people in a situation of great uncertainty”.
“It’s not as though assisted dying isn’t happening. It’s definitely happening, and the current regime is not coming anywhere near capturing it. Why? Because for those with money it’s Dignitas in Switzerland.
“For those without, it’s behind closed doors at home,” he said.
Sir Max spoke in favour of the Bill, saying “it may be complex” but provides “greater safeguard and protection than at the moment.”
Another barrister, Rebecca Gillanders, spoke of how her mother had wanted to end her life after being diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer but had suffered “despicable turmoil”.
James Johnson, a former police officer whose mother chose an assisted death in Switzerland, said keeping the law as it is would mean “continuing to financially discriminate against people” who cannot afford that option.
“It means continuing to sentence people like my mum, who are dying, to intolerable suffering and undignified, sometimes traumatic deaths,” he said.
