Munira Wilson

Much of the debate on this Bill has focused on dignity, control and choice. Over the past six weeks, I have had to confront those concepts head-on while watching a very close family member unexpectedly lose most physical capacity overnight. It is difficult when someone you love deeply, who has been a proud, strong and independent person, is unable to perform the most basic of human functions without help. The mental impact of that physical incapacity is utterly devastating for them, and for their nearest and dearest. That indignity and loss of control have felt unmanageable on days when the care has been poor, and so much more manageable when the nurses and healthcare assistants caring for my loved one have not been totally overstretched and coping without breaks; when they have been able to ensure that pain is well managed; and when the basic personal care that gives us dignity and boosts our wellbeing can be provided. That brings me to the heart of the conundrum we face today. Many of us in this place want to give people choice and autonomy over how they leave this world, but the reality—I have seen it up close and personal these past six weeks—is that our NHS and care system is nowhere near up to giving people that choice. It is creaking at the seams. I am very grateful that my amendment has been accepted, but a report on its own is not going to improve our palliative and end-of-life care, and we have had no commitment from Ministers yet that they will do so. The result will be either people choosing to end their life before they want to, or those who already have a huge distrust of the system—particularly those in minority and disadvantaged communities, whose voices have been heard the least in this debate—choosing not to access the care that they need, and dying an even more traumatic death. I do not believe that supporters of this Bill want either of those things to happen. Today, we parliamentarians have to cast possibly one of the most consequential votes of our time in this place. On such a complex and sensitive issue as assisted dying, it is only right that we turn to experts, and make evidence-based decisions. The Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Physicians, which are both officially neutral on assisted dying, have said plainly that they cannot support this Bill, not least for reasons to do with the most fundamental principle of mental capacity, which sits at the heart of this Bill. I therefore say to colleagues across the House: it is not too late to think again. The very people who will be tasked with delivering the service we are legislating for today—and, by the way, we still have no idea what that service will look like, or how it will be funded—say it is not safe. How many lives taken in error is too many? One? One in 10? One in 100? This House clearly supports the principle of an assisted death, as do the public, but not at any cost. This Bill is not fit for purpose, and the experts have told us that the safeguards in it will not adequately protect those who most need—indeed, expect—us legislators to protect them. I implore colleagues today to vote it down, and I say to Ministers on the Front Bench: it is your responsibility to go back and do better.