---

Assisted Dying

I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing the debate. It is about time that the issue was debated. Clearly, there are strong feelings on both sides, and it would be silly to pretend otherwise. I am much in favour of a change in the law along the lines put forward in Lord Joffe’s Bill, which was debated in the House of Lords some two years ago. Although it was defeated, it reflected to a large degree the sort of measure that I would like, with all the necessary safeguards. It was tightly drawn, as any such measure must be. I raised the matter in the House of Commons at business questions on 30 October, and I asked for the opportunity to have a debate. Interestingly, the Leader of the House replied:"““The criminal offence of assisting somebody’s suicide is unique as it is the only part of the criminal law where it is an offence to assist the commission of something that is itself not an offence.””—[Official Report, 30 October 2008; Vol. 481, c. 1039.]" That was an interesting interpretation, and no doubt the Minister will echo it when she responds. Somehow, the impression tends to be given by opponents of the measure that those who want to see a change in the law want to encourage the terminally ill to end their lives by such means. Nothing could be further from the truth. Both sides in this controversy rightly take the same line on the need for the best palliative care to be available to the terminally ill. The same applies to hospices. In my borough of Walsall, we have campaigned for more than a quarter of a century to have a hospice, and I am glad to say that at long last there is a reasonable chance that we will have one within two years. On those sorts of measure—on doing everything possible for the terminally ill—there is no difference between the two sides whatsoever. Again, I repeat that the idea that those of us who want a change in the law want to encourage people to die could not be further from the truth, and that should be emphasised. As the hon. Gentleman said, we are faced with a small number of people—it will always be a small number—who take the position, as their health worsens, that they simply want to end their lives. Of course, if they were in a position to commit suicide, that would be quite legal; if they attempted suicide and did not succeed, they would not be prosecuted, because of the 1961 Act. Those people are either unable to commit suicide, because of their medical condition, or simply do not wish to do so. If I were terminally ill and I decided that I wanted my life to come to an end, I would not wish to commit suicide, perhaps for lack of courage or confidence that I could do it. The question arises, which is the crux of the debate: should the law permit those who are in such a condition that they want to end their lives to do so in this country, without travelling abroad? That is the nub of the issue, and it is not going to go away. The controversy will continue, but I believe that, in time, although I do not know when—quite likely not in my lifetime—there will be a change in the law. Last week a national newspaper carried a piece about a different person to the one mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Her husband had been diagnosed with terminal cancer three years ago. He received treatment—I am sure that he received the best treatment available—but there came a stage, as she wrote in the article, when he decided that he simply did not want to continue to live. That was his wish. Some hon. Members who are strong opponents of what I am suggesting would no doubt take the view that he should not have that right, but he nevertheless believed that he had the right to control his own life and to decide that it should come to an end. He knew that it was not possible to do so in the United Kingdom, but he also knew that he could go to Switzerland, where the means would be provided for him to do so. Although there have been no prosecutions, there is always a possibility of prosecution. Despite that legal risk, his wife and adult children decided that they would accompany him. They were insistent that he should not go on his own, and they went to Switzerland. He was filmed confirming that he was acting on his own free will, before he was given a drug in liquid form, and the wife and the children held his hand as he died. I accept that there needs to be the strictest safeguards against abuse. I would not wish to be a party to any change that did not have such safeguards. Hence, the measure in Lord Joffe’s Bill would be limited and apply only to the terminally ill, where two independent doctors had examined the person. Provision would include a palliative care specialist, who would explain all the available alternatives. At every stage, the person would have the right to change his mind. There is no question of such a measure leading to large-scale abuse. I do not deny that abuse could occur—it would be wrong to say that it would be impossible—but I believe that the kind of measure that I have described, which was defeated in the House of Lords, would provide the widest possible provisions for dealing with abuse and all the other difficulties that obviously cause us concern. The hon. Gentleman commented on the situation in Oregon, where the position is much along the lines that I have been advocating. Its assisted dying Act, the Death with Dignity Act, has been in existence since 1994. It is interesting that the number of people who die in hospice care—I emphasise ““hospice care””—in that state has doubled since the Act came into operation. Therefore, the idea that providing facilities such as those that I have been recommending for the terminally ill means that there would be less care or that more people would decide to take their lives has been shown to be absolutely false in the one state in the United States where such facilities exist. I note that during the presidential, state and Senate elections—whatever elections took place last week—there were several resolutions on the ballot paper. In Washington, a large majority voted in favour of having the same provision as in Oregon.