On the 29th November, Members of Parliament will vote on Kim Leadbeater MP's Private Members’ Bill on Assisted Dying. The Prime Minister has made clear that this vote will be down to the individual consciousness of MPs, and for that – we will not be “whipped” to vote.   

This is, of course, the right decision. The decision on how to vote in this debate will not be something that any MP will take lightly – it is a deeply emotive and complex issue, raising significant ethical, moral, and practical questions.   

The Bill, if approved, will seek to reform current legislation and allow terminally ill individuals with six months to live, to make the choice to end their life – subject to a ruling from a high court judge and two independent doctors.   

Over the past few weeks, and since the Private Members Bill was put forward to the House, I have been talking to many constituents about their own views on Assisted Dying, as well as experts from both sides of the argument – listening closely to those in favour of it, and those who are opposed.   

Those who support assisted dying often view it as an essential aspect of personal autonomy—the right to choose how and when to end one’s life, particularly when faced with a terminal illness and suffering that cannot be alleviated. On the other hand, I’ve heard directly from those who oppose it on ethical, moral, or religious grounds, fearing that legalising assisted dying could lead to its misuse or undermine the sanctity of life. These are not views that can be dismissed lightly, and both sides of the argument must be carefully considered - I would expect that all MPs are taking this issue incredibly seriously.  

From the outset, I have been committed to approaching this debate and future vote with an open mind – it is vital that I draw on the input and expertise of medical professionals, legal experts, ethicists, and, most importantly, individuals who have lived through the experience of supporting loved ones at the end of their lives.    

There are so many aspects to this issue that require careful examination. One of the most significant is how to ensure that the decision to seek assistance in dying is truly voluntary and not the result of coercion or undue pressure. For example, the proposed Bill as it currently stands would be restricted to mentally competent adults who have a prognosis of six months or less to live, which is an important safeguard.   

At the heart of this debate is the question of autonomy—whether individuals should have the right to control how and when they die, especially in the face of terminal illness. I’ve heard directly from constituents in Suffolk Coastal that the only options they have in their terminal illness is suffering, suicide or Switzerland.Jenny has heard from constituents in Suffolk Coastal that the only options they have in their terminal illness is 'suffering, suicide or Switzerland'. (Image: Fairs-Lloyds Travel) If they opt for ‘Switzerland’, they will have to be unaccompanied by loved ones, as they would face prosecution on their return to the UK.   

However, I know that many people are concerned about the potential abuse that a change in the law could mean – if vulnerable, terminally ill people feel pressured or compelled to make such a choice that isn’t truly their own.   

I am in no doubt that high-quality palliative care must remain a priority, and assisted dying must never be a substitute for proper care at the end of life.    

The question of assisted dying is one that requires not only a thoughtful and respectful debate but also a clear understanding of the broader implications for society. I have asked people in my constituency to continue to share their views with me, ahead of the vote on the 29 November. Please do get in touch with me via email to share your views on it if you are a constituent in Suffolk Coastal.   

I will continue to keep an open mind as this conversation unfolds, and I will work hard to ensure that the voices of all stakeholders—whether they support or oppose assisted dying—are heard and considered in any decisions made.    

Ultimately, any decision regarding assisted dying must reflect a balance between the rights of individuals to make decisions about their own lives and the responsibility of society to protect vulnerable individuals from harm. It is essential that any potential change to the law does not undermine the care and dignity that all people deserve, especially those nearing the end of their lives.   

I remain committed to listening to all sides of this debate, to carefully weighing the arguments, and to making the most thoughtful and compassionate decision possible when the time comes.