CONCERNS have been raised by Bromsgrove’s MP over the government’s assisted dying bill after its second reading in parliament last week.
Bradley Thomas MP has voiced his unease around a couple of elements of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill which looks to legislate the highly controversial topic of euthanasia in the UK.
The proposed law, supported by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, would allow adults with less than six months to live the right to end their life with the help of a willing doctor. The bill passed its first stage in the House of Commons in October.
Following the bill’s second reading in parliament last Friday (November 29), Mr Thomas voted against it and expressed ‘heightened concern’ around the proposed legislation which he says does not define the training, qualifications, or experience of the ‘co-ordinating doctor’ who is an undefined ‘medical practitioner’.
The Bromsgrove MP said: “Ignoring the humanity that sits behind this Bill is impossible.
“However, as a Member of Parliament I have a duty to ensure that legislation is as robust as possible and drafted to avoid unintended consequences, even when they arise from a place of good intention.
“I am not sufficiently content that this Bill meets those criteria and cannot with good conscience support it.”
Mr Thomas also has issues with a clause of the bill which allows doctors who are ethically opposed to assisted dying to conscientiously object to ending a patient’s life whilst not affording the same refusal rights to judges.
He added: “This presents an unfair contradiction which would see judges compelled to engage with assisted dying cases whereas doctors could be ethically exempt.
“Furthermore, a patient who unduly feels a burden, either on their family or society, would be able to independently end their life without their wishes being known until after the event.
“The emotional trauma to families could be catastrophic.”
Mr Thomas also feels the bill has not received enough attention or time for deliberation in parliament, noting how other bills have been under far more parliamentary scrutiny before becoming law.
The MP added: “I have consistently said that Parliament must progress any Bill carefully, without rushing, allowing ample time for MPs, and society, to debate the issue and ensure that any new Act of Parliament is as robust and legislatively tight as possible.
“Even at Second Reading, the most significant shift in the relationship between the individual and the state deserves greater Parliamentary scrutiny prior to Parliament voting on the principle of the Bill.
“The Government has failed to commit to allowing substantive time on the floor of the House of Commons and a short Parliamentary debate of five hours is insufficient time for up to 650 Members of Parliament to comprehensively debate and do justice to the implications of what would be our most profound social change in decades.
“Parliament owes it to every member of our society to ensure that legislation of this intent is robust and without ambiguity.
“I am not sufficiently content that this Bill meets those criteria and cannot with good conscience support it.”
Finishing, Mr Thomas expressed the critical nature of investing in end-of-life palliative care to ensure patients with terminal illness receive the very best healthcare to mitigate suffering and prolong quality of life.
He also said he wanted every constituent to know his decision to oppose the bill came after many hours of deliberation.
