Ruth Cadbury

I supported this legislation first in 2015 and will do so again as it goes through its processes. I am truly grateful for all the work that so many hon. Members here and in the other House have done on the detail of the Bill. I am confident that it has been improved significantly and that we have learned from the experiences of jurisdictions across the world, many of which have had assisted dying for many years. Let us remember that in most of those jurisdictions only about a third of people who choose the option of assisted dying actually go ahead and need to use it. My resolve has been strengthened by those I have heard from with direct experience. I will mention just two such experiences, told to me by people I know well. One is a constituent who asked me to support the change in legislation. His brother was diagnosed with cancer, and after an operation that proved unsuccessful, he was admitted to a hospice for end-of-life care. About his brother, he said: “He was very philosophical about what was going to happen. His one request and hope was that his death was not going to be prolonged and painful. He received excellent care from an amazing team at the hospice. Sadly, when the time came, he suffered in a way no human should have to…We don’t allow our pets to suffer the way he did. His acute suffering and pain lasted 4 days. When he was able he pleaded for help for the pain to stop. The hospice did everything possible to help, but there are legal limits to what they can do. If he could only have received a life-ending intervention 5 days before he died, as he wanted, he would not have had to suffer the indignity and agony of a painful and long, drawn-out, horrific death.” The second experience is that described on several occasions in the House by Paul Blomfield, the former MP for Sheffield Central, about his father’s death. Paul continues to be a powerful advocate for the right to choose. His full speeches are preserved in Hansard, so I will quote just a small part about his experience. Paul received a phone call that his father had been found dead in his garage after receiving a terminal diagnosis of inoperable lung cancer. In Paul’s words, “He had had his share of health problems, but he faced them all positively, until a terminal diagnosis of inoperable lung cancer clearly led to his decision to take his life. He could not talk to me or his partner about it, because he would have made us complicit. The current law forced my father into a lonely decision and a lonely death. And he died prematurely, because I am sure that what drove him to end his life at that point was the fear that if he did not act when he was still able to do so, he would lose the opportunity to act at all.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2022; Vol. 717, c. 231WH.] Those potentially facing unimaginable pain or suffering after their terminal diagnosis, despite the best palliative care, currently have options that are unbearably lonely—like for Paul’s father—or involve an arduous and costly journey by going to Switzerland; or they have no choice, like my constituent’s brother.