Political Opinion: Why I’m voting for the Assisted Dying Bill

Moments like that stay with you. They’re reminders that being an MP isn’t just about policy debates or votes in the Chamber—it’s about people. These chance encounters bring home the weight of our decisions. Few issues are as personal or as profound as how we approach the end of life.

This issue shows the role of an MP in stark focus, and Parliament at its best. The government has rightly allowed this to be purely a matter of conscience. It reveals the immense power and responsibility of both MPs and Parliament. This is democracy in top gear. It shows the system working, cross-party collaboration, and requires MPs to avail themselves of the facts and arguments on both sides.

I have met and spoken with colleagues, doctors, academics, religious leaders, terminally ill people, lobby groups—and most importantly, constituents.

Critics of the Bill often raise moral objections, arguing that we should never take steps that might hasten someone’s death. Others point to practical concerns, claiming that the safeguards aren't robust enough and that vulnerable individuals could be coerced. Some warn of a so-called "slippery slope"—suggesting the law might gradually expand to include those with mental health conditions or lead to the legalisation of euthanasia.

Another argument frequently raised is that our focus should be on improving palliative care. On this, I agree wholeheartedly—better palliative care is essential. But it’s important to recognise that this Bill and hospice care are not mutually exclusive. They can, and should, exist side by side.

Doctors who support the Bill have made it clear: palliative care is not a catch-all solution. In some cases, no amount of care can relieve the suffering of a person whose body is being ravaged by terminal illness—and a doctor has explained the horrific way some people die and that palliative care cannot mitigate this for all.

I respect those who oppose this legislation. A case has been made on the grounds of the sanctity of life from a religious perspective. But in the UK, we do not legislate based on religious belief.

A devout Christian once said to me, “Just because I follow Jesus doesn’t mean I have the right to impose my will on everyone else. It's up to individuals.” That stayed with me. Belief—no matter how sincerely held—does not grant the right to deny someone else the ability to exercise autonomy over their own body, especially at the end of life.

During the second reading of the Bill, I had hoped to share a simple thought experiment—one I believe gets to the heart of this debate.

I asked myself: could I look a terminally ill person in the eye and say that, because of the concerns raised—because of the theoretical risk of coercion or a slippery slope—I am going to deny you the autonomy and dignity you are asking for, at the most vulnerable moment of your life?

As a son, a father, a brother, a husband, and a friend, I could not say that. And I will not.

I ask readers to look into their souls, as I have done, and ask themselves the same question.

This Bill is rightly being held to a high standard—after all, the issues it touches are deeply personal. But if we demanded perfection before acting, no law would ever be passed.

Parliament regularly makes decisions with profound consequences. We do not abolish jury trials because juries occasionally reach the wrong verdict. We don’t ban surgery because mistakes, though rare, can happen. In every case, we weigh the benefits against the potential risk—and we act, because to refrain from action is itself an action with its own moral and physical impacts.

The same principle should apply here. What matters is how we manage that risk, and whether on balance the values of autonomy, dignity, and compassion can outweigh it. We cannot let the pursuit of the perfect prevent us from doing what is right.

I welcome the recent strengthening of safeguards in the Bill. I’ve seen first hand the care my colleagues have taken—going through the legislation line by line—and I’ve listened closely to voices on all sides of the debate. My belief remains that individuals should have the right to determine the manner of their own death, within the tightly defined and carefully protected circumstances this Bill outlines.

It is for these reasons, as set out in this article, that I will be voting in good conscience in favour of the Bill.