The BBCFor the first time in nearly a decade, MPs will debate and vote on Friday on whether terminally ill people should have the right to end their lives.
If MPs vote in favor of assisted dying, it could lead to a significant change in UK society, on a par with reforms around the death penalty, divorce, abortion and same-sex marriage.
MPs last voted on the deeply sensitive issue nearly a decade ago, when they rejected the idea outright. But it is hard to predict how the House of Commons, filled with many MPs for the first time and with a free vote on the issue, will approach such an important debate.
John Butterworth wants to end her life. She has developed endometrial cancer and has been told she has less than six months to live.
She saw her husband die of liver cancer 30 years ago and doesn’t want to go down the same path. “It was a very difficult and very painful death,” she says.
Under the proposed new law, people like John – who has been told he has less than six months to live – would be able to access drugs to end his life, but only two With the agreement of doctors and a High Court judge who will review. The decision
Joan would love to die at home with her son and daughter but knows that’s unlikely, even if the bill passes, because she only has months to live.
“It leaves me with a very poor set of options,” she says. “We should make it right for people, give them a comfortable death – a comfortable death.”
More about assisted dying vote
But opponents of the bill worry that, among other things, legalization of assisted dying would put a clear strain on those who were eligible.
Becky Burneau has cancer that has spread to her lungs. He is against any change in the law.
“My whole concern is that if I’m in the same position as I was two years ago, where I was in excruciating pain, and I don’t have anyone with me, I could potentially make the wrong decision,” she tells us. . . “And a bad decision is not something you can come back from. You’re dead.”
His view is partly informed by his religious beliefs but also that the bill would endanger people with disabilities or serious illnesses.
This is an argument often made by opponents of the legislation, and especially by people with disabilities. They fear the proposed law will shorten the lives of many vulnerable people.
Becky shares these fears. She says this will open the door for people who are coercively controlled or pressured to end their lives prematurely.
“This law potentially puts people in a position where they think they’re a burden and the easy option is to end their life. It’s very troubling, especially at a time when people have lost all their lives. are weaker than
The proposed bill in England and Wales comes with safeguards that supporters say would make the laws the toughest in the world.
But others worry that, if approved, the assisted-dying law could be loosened later, meaning more people could die with assistance.
Mark Blackwell has Parkinson’s disease and is a round-the-clock caregiver for his wife, Eppie. He won’t be eligible for assisted dying under the bill’s terms — but he’s still concerned about the impact the law could have on people like him who have progressive illnesses.
Parkinson’s is not considered a terminal disease. It is a condition affecting certain parts of the brain that gradually deteriorates over many years.
Mark’s illness means he can no longer speak but he can talk a little while blinking.
Asked by BBC News whether helping to legalize dying would make her feel a burden and pressure to end her life, she indicated.
Mark and Eppie have been married for 45 years and she tells us that caring for her until the end of her natural life is her way of showing her love.
“When we got married, we took an oath, for better or worse, in sickness and in health,” says Eppie. “Love is unconditional.”
Again his views are shaped in part by his Christian faith but also, he says, by his professional experience. Both worked in psychiatry and had patients who had taken their own lives.
Disability charities, as well as religious groups that strongly believe in the sanctity of human life, have formed the backbone of opposition to the proposed legislation, but the arguments against changing the law have been couched in very secular terms.
For Mark and Eppie, the argument simply comes down to valuing life.
‘Long and very unpleasant’
Friday’s vote is the latest attempt to introduce assisted dying – it was first debated in Parliament in 1936.
The current bill – known as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – has been introduced by Labor MP Kim Leadbetter.
They came out on top in the MPs’ polls and so their bill – known as a private member’s bill – is the first bill to be considered and probably has the best chance of becoming law.
Although the government has remained neutral on the issue, and MPs can vote according to their own beliefs, ministers have already come out for or against the bill.
For Sir Nicholas Mostyn, a retired High Court judge, the most compassionate thing to do would be to give him the option to end his life before his body deteriorates to the point where he cannot physically carry out everyday tasks. can
Like Mark, he has been diagnosed with Parkinson’s but is not yet in the advanced stages of the disease.
“Chances are, if you have Parkinson’s, you’re going to have a long and very unpleasant life,” he tells BBC News. He supports the bill – even though it would not give him the right to end his own life.
Symptoms of Parkinson’s include loss of control of parts of the body and slow movement. In the most advanced stages, sufferers may find themselves unable to move or speak.
Sir Nicholls, and sufferers of certain other debilitating conditions which are not considered terminal illnesses, would like the bill to be amended to cover them.
For some critics, this is a key reason to vote against it.
They fear, whether now or in the future, the bill could be expanded to include people with non-terminal conditions – which they say would be a threat to people with disabilities.
The most regularly cited example is Canada, which opponents say is an example of the so-called “slippery slope.”
Legislation introduced there in 2016 was initially only for terminally ill people, but was extended in 2021 to those experiencing “intolerable suffering” from an irreversible illness or disability. A further extension has been delayed, but it is still to be available to people with mental illness in three years.
Sir Nicholas says: “I just don’t understand the moral argument, that because I want to exercise autonomy over my own body, that I am somehow a ‘slippery slope’ for abusing such people. ‘ facilitating those who don’t actually want to? [end their lives]”
Friday’s vote – if it passes – will mark the start of a lengthy parliamentary process. It will be scrutinized by a committee of MPs for weeks, as they go through the legislation.
The bill will then go back to the House of Commons and then the House of Lords where it can be amended by further votes.
Even if MPs vote in favor of the bill – there is still a long way to go before these proposed changes become law.
But if they do, it will mark another major reform of the law that has seen our society change so much over the past 50 years.