The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill recently came before the House of Commons for its Third Reading. This is one of the most ethically complex and emotionally charged pieces of legislation that Parliament has considered in recent years, and I am acutely aware of the strength of feeling it evokes across our communities.
I have received a significant volume of correspondence from constituents on this matter, both in support and in opposition, and I am grateful to everyone who took the time to share their views. I have read each message with care and respect.
The issues raised by this Bill go to the very heart of how we understand autonomy, dignity, and the sanctity of life. It is precisely because of the gravity of these questions that I approached each stage of the legislative process with thoughtfulness and humility.
In considering this Bill, I have drawn on my professional background as both a barrister and a surgeon. I have seen first-hand the extraordinary advances of palliative care, as well as the limits of what medicine can offer. I have cared for patients in the final stages of terminal illness, and I have stood alongside families navigating unbearable sorrow. These experiences have shaped my belief in the importance of allowing individuals to exercise choice at the end of their lives, particularly where suffering can no longer be eased by clinical intervention.
Having listened, reflected, and carefully scrutinised the proposals and safeguards set out in the legislation, I voted in favour of the Bill at Third Reading.
This was not a decision made lightly, nor was it born out of disregard for life. Rather, it stemmed from a conviction that dignity, agency, and compassion must guide our response to those facing the end of life in circumstances of intolerable suffering. The Bill is tightly drawn. It applies only to adults who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness and given a prognosis of six months or fewer to live. It provides for rigorous medical assessment, judicial oversight, and voluntary, informed consent. It is emphatically not about opening the door to wider euthanasia; it is about offering a limited, humane option in carefully defined circumstances.
I fully acknowledge that some will hold a different view. That is the strength of our democratic system, and I remain open to constructive dialogue. However, I firmly believe that a civilised society must meet such questions with honesty, courage, and empathy. Where individuals are living out their final days in fear and distress, Parliament has a duty to consider whether our laws offer them the compassion, safety, and respect they deserve.
