On Friday 20 June, the House of Commons backed the assisted dying Bill by a majority of 23.
Commenting on the result, Richard Fuller MP said:
The Assisted Dying Bill has now passed the House of Commons and will proceed to the House of Lords and I wanted to share my reflections and reasons why I voted against the Bill. You can watch my video following today’s vote here: https://youtu.be/3wQpDTj9e7U
I want to thank everyone who has contacted me about this issue. I appreciate the deeply personal and often painful experiences that inform different views on this matter.
While I understand the desire to ease the suffering for those with terminal illness, I believe this Bill marks a far more profound shift than has often been acknowledged. The Bill will fundamentally alter the relationship between the state and its citizens. The absence of Government support for the Bill means it has progressed without any formal analysis, oversight, or clear plan for implementation, and I believe the current Bill lacks the robust safeguards required to protect vulnerable people.
Sometimes, public perception of a Bill does not match its content, or a Bill is worded in such a way which leaves it open to interpretation or legal challenge. However well-meaning they may be, some Bills can result in unintended consequences and bad laws; I believe that this is one such Bill.
This Bill goes far beyond an individual’s personal choice. It introduces a state-sanctioned and state-resourced process for the state to end its citizens lives. Even if conducted with consent, this is a fundamental change in the relationship between the individual and the state. Therefore, if Parliament is to take such a step, it must be accompanied by rigorous analysis and clear answers to practical questions.
Contrary to this, the Bill has in fact progressed without any assessment by the Government or civil service. There is no clarity on how such a system would be resourced, regulated, or delivered in practice. The Health Secretary did not support the Bill, and there is no Government plan for implementation. That alone should give us pause.
I also have serious concerns about the adequacy of the safeguards. The removal of High Court oversight to prevent abuse in favour of a panel, significantly weakens the protections initially promised when the Bill was introduced. Replacing it with a panel that may never meet the patient, or their family, raises troubling questions about impartiality and due process.
Canada’s MAID law is an example of how such legislation can gradually expand over time. The requirement for a terminal diagnosis was removed, and an expansion to include mental illness is currently under consideration. I do not believe this Bill includes sufficient safeguards to prevent similar developments in the UK.
The Bill will now enter the House of Lords where it will be subject to further scrutiny to address the lack of safeguards, the absence of a clear implementation plan, and the broader implications for our society.
That said, I believe this has been a valuable and necessary debate. I understand that for many people the passing of this Bill will be welcomed. The House of Commons has made its decision. Now we must make sure we do all we can to protect society and individuals at the end of their lives, as this new power will become available in a few years’ time.
