Member of Parliament for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Alison Griffiths, shared the below statement following the vote on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
Alison explained,
"Many constituents from across Bognor Regis and Littlehampton have contacted me regarding the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. With its Parliamentary debate taking place today, Friday 29th November, I want to outline my views about this Bill. I have followed this debate closely. It is an extremely delicate matter, and I have been aware that whichever path I choose, many will be disappointed.
"As many of you will be aware, during the election campaign this summer, I was clear that I was sympathetic to the arguments put forward by supporters of this bill, and that if I were to vote against it, it would be because I was unhappy with the safeguards once the detail of the bill was known.
"I am pleased that this bill has highlighted the importance of ensuring that high quality palliative care must be a choice available to everyone, and indeed that better support for our hospices is vital.
"Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency-specific research (conducted prior to its publication by Dignity in Dying, who support the bill) shows support for assisted dying at 78% (versus 75% nationally). Indeed, prior to my election, I believed that I would vote in favour if a bill was placed before Parliament.
"However, my post-bag of hundreds of letters and emails is much more evenly split, with a narrow majority asking me to vote against the bill.
"It has been an extremely difficult decision, and one over which I have taken much consultation and deliberation. Ultimately, I decided to vote against the bill.
"Whilst I empathise deeply with those wanting me to support the bill, I believe that I must vote to protect those who are least able to protect themselves.
"The experience of the pandemic shows us what happens in extremis when the NHS is under pressure. During Covid, many disabled patients had a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order placed on their medical records, without their consent. During periods when hospitals run above capacity, there is already pressure on doctors to discharge patients earlier than might be optimal. I am deeply concerned about the potential pressure this puts on vulnerable patients and their families if the option of assisted death is presented.
"Along with many other MPs, I am troubled by the reduced scrutiny afforded by this legislation as it has been brought forward as a “Private Member’s Bill.” This means I am not afforded the same opportunities to scrutinise it as happens with other legislation. At Prime Minister’s Questions last week, Sir Keir Starmer refused to allow additional Parliamentary time for this bill. Consequently, MPs only had five hours of debate before voting on it. I think this is insufficient. The legislation, as drafted, raised many questions that must be answered. For a change of this magnitude, the Bill must be carefully examined, and its impact truly understood. Without such scrutiny, I fear that the most vulnerable people in our society will not be protected.
"I have always made clear that I believe there must be robust safeguards in place to protect individuals from coercion. Therefore, I am concerned by the minimal safeguards contained within the Bill. The legislation also allows individuals to “shop around” until they find two medical practitioners (not necessarily doctors) to give them the answer they want. This takes further vital safeguards away.
"The Bill further raises matters which we must consider for doctors and medical professionals. Can doctors be conscientious objectors and oppose a patient’s wish to die? What support will be in place or doctors as they carry the weight of the decision? Will it become a dedicated role within the NHS to help people to die? Will some professionals encourage their patients to opt for assisted dying as a means of saving the NHS money? The Bill goes as far as enable doctors to raise the matter of assisted dying with a patient, even if the thought has never entered the patient’s mind. This cannot be right.
"Under the legislation, a High Court Judge would review each case. First and foremost, courts must deal with criminal cases, so I share concerns regarding the sufficient capacity of the court system. I am concerned about the impact on the courts and fear there would be future calls to amend the law to remove the oversight of a judge, undermining the already limited safeguarding provisions in place.
"I remain deeply committed to working to enhance our healthcare system and end of life care so that it better treats all patients with dignity and compassion.
"Finally, I would particularly like to thank everyone from across the Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency who shared their views and personal experiences with me. It has been profoundly moving. I have done my very best to consider all perspectives, and I am sorry that the binary nature of a vote means that I cannot deliver the desired outcome of everyone who wrote to me."
