MP explains decision to vote against assisted dying bill

Warminster MP Andrew Murrison has explained his decision to vote against the latest attempt to legalise assisted dying, citing concerns about protecting vulnerable people and the potential consequences for the medical profession and care system. 

The House of Commons voted against the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on Friday 11th September, with 286 MPs voting against and 270 in favour. 

The Bill proposed allowing terminally ill adults to request assistance to end their own lives, subject to safeguards. 

MPs were given a free vote on the issue, meaning they were not required to vote along party lines. 

Explaining his decision in a speech in Parliament, Andrew Murrison said, “The first reason I will not be supporting this Bill today is I seriously do not want to live in the kind of society in which we see the frail, elderly and vulnerable coerced into ‘doing the right thing.’ 

“We can set up panels and judges in chamber and social workers and all the rest of it, but we as humans know how humans work. We know the light side and we know the dark. 

“We know that certain groups particularly like to please, to acquiesce, to oblige. We all know constituents like that and we also know that they are often amongst the most vulnerable.” 

Dr Murrison, who declared his interest as a recent medical practitioner and active doctor, also raised concerns about the impact on healthcare professionals. 

“I do not want the tone and texture of my profession or of any other to be change irrevocably by its involvement in termination. Nor do I want other in the NHS or elsewhere in our care system unprotected by codes of ethics. 

“If this Bill passes, the pressure on those in the palliative care sector particularly to facilitate assisted dying will be substantial.” 

He argued that the proposed legislation should not be introduced through a private member’s bill, given the complexity of the issues involved. 

“The only way to achieve a halfway safe and competent act is to make it a government bill, contained in a manifesto. And so far, no major political party has wanted to engage with that,” he said. 

Dr Murrison also distinguished between medical interventions intended to ease suffering and a deliberate programme to end lives. 

“It is true that each day, lives are shortened by interventions aimed at easing pain or suffering. That’s what the caring professions do. That is quite different from a deliberate and systematic, state sanctioned, anddelivered programme to end the lives of people approaching death.” 

Concluding his speech, he said, “My instincts tell me that giving the state or its agents leave to end life in this way is wrong. They tell me that, however well intentioned, it’ll lead in one direction that will, over time, leave a grisly trail of unintended and unforeseen consequences. And that’s why I oppose this bill.” 

The decision from MPs means there is unlikely to be any change to the law on assisted dying in the immediate future. 

The MP’s speech in full can be viewed on his Facebook page. 

Photo: Parliament TV