Carla Lockhart

I commend the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) for making one of the most powerful speeches we have heard in this place today. The words we use in this debate matter, and if I have learned anything in my 20 years in politics, it is to be honest with people and the public we represent. The soft language of “assisted dying” is misleading the public, because it obscures the stark and very dark reality of what is actually being proposed. We should always have the courage to call things what they are. Of course, we all want assistance when we are dying, but that is not what this Bill provides. It is not about an extra shot of morphine to ease someone on their way; it is a Bill that allows doctors to provide lethal drugs for a patient to end their life. Let the reality of that sink in: our great NHS, the principles of which are to protect and to save lives, would be responsible for state-sponsored suicide. That is what it is. Yesterday was World Suicide Prevention Day; the irony should not be lost on any Member of this House. Healthcare professionals and charities work tirelessly to prevent suicide. They seek to reassure people in despair that their life has value, that help is available and that hope remains, but what would this Bill do? It would weaken the principles that underpin our suicide prevention strategies. I ask supporters of the Bill: what message does a system of state-sanctioned death send to those already wrestling with suicidal thoughts? How can we genuinely regard suicide as a tragedy to be prevented while allowing it to become a medical intervention to be facilitated by the state? One of the deepest concerns is that the Bill does not require a proper exploration of why a patient wishes to end their life. What if their wish is driven by financial worries, poor access to care or the fear of being a burden on family members? Sometimes a desire to die is actually a cry for help, yet under this legislation, death will be presented as an acceptable response to hardship. The lines get particularly blurry when it comes to certain manageable conditions, such as type 1 diabetes. If a person decides to refuse treatment, such conditions could end up meeting the Bill’s definition of terminal illness. When the definition is this broad, it is easy to see how the law will expand over time. Those who oppose my view will hate the words “slippery slope”, but that is the reality in every country where this legislation has been approved: Oregon’s similar legislation now covers diabetes and arthritis; in Belgium, it covers children and people with autism; and in Spain, a lady who was gang raped ultimately went on to end her own life. I also have grave concerns about those who may be quietly pressured into choosing assisted suicide. The Bill allows doctors to discuss assisted suicide with patients, but it makes no exception for those who may be especially vulnerable.