John Hayes: For those who’ve adopted it, you will struggle to find examples of where assisted dying has worked or helped

Sir John Hayes is a former Minister of State who served in six departments, and is MP for South Holland and the Deepings.

Doubtless, many believe that the House of Commons debate next Friday on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is about death, in fact the decision MPs will make is about life – its value and who does the valuing. 

For despite all the assurances from its advocates, the proposed legislation’s ‘safeguards’ will, in practice, prove ineffective as we know from tragic experience that wherever assisted suicide laws have been introduced, there have been numerous case studies revealing vulnerable people being pressurised to end their lives prematurely.

Those campaigning to introduce assisted suicide laws to our country, when challenged for examples of where it has been a success, struggle to do so. Yet, whenever a new jurisdiction is encouraged to introduce such legislation, their proponents always promise that things will be different. They solemnly pledge that vulnerable people won’t be put at risk because ‘safeguards’ will protect them. Time and time again, in practice, this is found to be a fallacy, and there is no compelling reason to believe that Kim Leadbeater’s Bill will be an exception.

Which is why it is troubling that this measure is being rushed through Parliament – to a degree, at a speed I’ve only witnessed in my 27 years in the House of Commons in the case of emergency legislation.

The last time an assisted suicide bill was introduced there was a time lag of almost two months between the Bill being published and it being put to a vote.

In contrast, this time it’s been a little over two weeks between publication and Second Reading. So, regardless of conflicting views on the matter, there is surely no doubt that its monumental importance necessitates much greater consideration. It’s straightforward, given the plight of some of the most vulnerable people in our society is at stake, that sufficient scrutiny of the Bill’s provisions is of paramount importance.

Each Member of Parliament has a solemn duty to consider this hugely significant Bill with the greatest of care, and, having been afforded ample opportunity to seek their constituents’ views, as well as those of the experts, who through charities and interest groups, give voice to the sick, elderly, and disabled. It is therefore wholly unacceptable that Parliament will have just five hours to debate and decide whether or not to create a lawful entitlement to take human life.

Neither is the argument persuasive that MPs should simply vote the Bill through at Second Reading regardless of concerns as it can be improved through line-by-line scrutiny as it makes its way through both Houses of Parliament. The reality is that since 2010, 99.6 per cent of occasions when a Private Member’s Bill has passed at second reading it has become law. If Parliamentarians have any concerns about this proposed legislation’s deficiencies, they should oppose it next Friday.

Given my experience, I can predict with confidence that countless Parliamentarians will wish to speak on the day of the debate next week, obliging the Speaker to truncate speeches, giving each MP just a few minutes to deal with the gravity of a choice between life and death, and the seriousness of the Bill’s contents.

Why the rush?

Surely, the campaigners for euthanasia don’t believe that the more the matter is considered, the more support will ebb away. Though certainly, the tide seems to be turning against them, as members from across the House – in increasing numbers – express deep doubts about an imperfect Private Members Bill being an appropriate vehicle to decide upon one of the most significant issues of this Parliament.

To paraphrase TS Elliot, half the harm that is done in this world is done by people who don’t mean to do harm, it is just that the harm doesn’t interest them. From Oregon to Ontario, from Amsterdam to Antwerp, assisted suicide has harmed not helped regardless of the intentions of its advocates.