---

Assisted Dying

I agree, but that is probably outwith the remit of the debate. I am simply making the point that there is a generic quality to every proposal that we see. Grounds are stated by an individual, and those grounds are then agreed by the state. Let us consider the recent case of Daniel James, who was not dying in the ordinary sense. In many cases, his choice was presented in the media as the right choice. It was agreed that his life was unbearable, a burden and so on. However, I have the same concerns as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). I received an e-mail from a constituent of mine, and I will read a small section of it. My constituent, Dr. Sue Garner-Jones, wrote:"““I am writing to ask that you please say something about the hysteria surrounding the ““bravery”” of the late Daniel James and his family. I am seriously concerned that this might have a severely detrimental effect on anyone who lives with disability or cares for someone in this situation, especially as Mr. and Mrs. James are referring to his life as a tetraplegic as ““second class””… I am a tetraplegic, as you may know, and have been for 30 years since a car accident paralysed me at 19... Many times I have felt despair, as most of us do, so of course I respect and understand this man’s decision and am not judging him: I have neither the wish nor right to do so. However, to call this action ““brave””, ““courageous”” and ““selfless”” implies that those of us who battle on are ““cowardly”” and ““selfish””, which is unfair and untrue… Please speak out as there should be one voice for those of us who turned a ““tragedy”” into almost a ““triumph”” and despite the temptation to give up went on. Society must not return to thinking of the disabled as literally ““invalid.””"