Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 27 March 2012. It occurred during Backbench debate on Assisted Suicide.


Assisted Suicide

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe). I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee on allowing it to take place. I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his excellent speech. I do not think that we have agreed on much over the years in this place, but on this we are of one mind. More importantly, I congratulate the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, on publishing the guidance and the balance of public interest test that the hon. Gentleman covered in his speech. I welcome the debate, and the mood of the House seems clearly supportive of the motion, if not yet of amendment (a), tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), although there is still time to persuade colleagues. Even supporting the motion will demonstrate that we are in tune with public opinion. Just as the hon. Member for Croydon South said that the House caught up with public opinion in 1961 by passing the Suicide Act, it will catch up by agreeing to his motion today, whether or not it approves amendment (a). Amendment (b) will obviously command universal support. I should put my cards on the table: I support the campaign Dignity in Dying. There is a photograph on its website of a supporter's poster, which states:"““My life, my choice, at the end of my life””," and ““end”” is underlined. The emphasis is on personal choice to end not only suffering and loss of dignity but the deterioration in quality of life when individuals know that the end is near and want to be in control of their own death. I say ““they””, and our decisions here always have an impact on our fellow citizens, but this is also about us. We need to ask ourselves, what if it were our loved one seeking a less harrowing end to their life? Would we welcome the DPP's common sense more or less? Would we want them to have the chance to choose? I believe strongly that it needs to be recognised that there is some pain, some misery and some indignity that cannot be ameliorated or made more bearable by palliative care, and that being reduced to a vegetative state by increasing recourse to continuous sedation is not how some people want to end their lives. They want their own choice, and they do not want loved ones to suffer because of that choice. The DPP's guidelines are helpful in offering both victim and family some protection.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
542 c1390-1 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Crown Prosecution Service Aiding and abetting Euthanasia Prosecutions Suicide Purdy, Debbie
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk