Local MPs will have their say on assisted dying today – how will they vote and why?

Greater Manchester’s 27 MPs will have their say on assisted dying in the House of Commons today (Friday).

It is the first time the issue of ‘choice at the end of life’ has come before the Commons in nearly a decade.

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater proposed the Private Members Bill in mid-October, which would legalise assisted death under certain conditions for terminally ill adults in England and Wales.

The bill would apply to those who are over 18 years old, have mental capacity, and have six months left to live, with the consent of two medical professionals.
The government is impartial on the issue and so MPs will vote according to their conscience in a ‘free vote’ and not along party lines.

Under the proposals, a High Court judge would have to rule each time a person makes a request to end their life. A patient would then have to wait 14 days before acting.

It would be against the law to coerce someone into asserting they want to end their life, with a possible 14-year prison sentence. Ms Leadbeater said her bill includes ‘the strictest safeguards anywhere in the world’.

MPs in Greater Manchester have received thousands of representations from constituents with differing views on the proposed legislation ahead of the vote.

If the vote is supported by a majority of MPs on Friday the bill would pass to ‘committee stage’ and be further debated and refined on a cross-party basis with more votes before any laws are passed. The MEN asked the region’s 27 MPs which way they would be voting on Friday and for a statement of up to 150 words on why.

Ashton-under-Lyne – Angela Rayner – AGAINST

Did not provide a statement as per guidance for ministers. However, the M.E.N. understands she will be voting against. Ms Rayner voted against similar legislation in 2015 and it is understood her views have not changed.

Gorton & Denton – Andrew Gwynne – WILL NOT BE PRESENT

I will not be in London for the vote, because of long-standing constituency commitments. I believe it is right to discuss this as a private members bill, and for the pros and cons of a change of law to be aired and discussed on the floor of the House.

In the past I’ve opposed changes to the law in this area, although I have now changed my position, being much more sympathetic to allowing assisted dying within a framework that also heavily emphasises protections and safeguards.

I don’t know whether this Bill actually strikes that balance and, should it receive a second reading, I’d expect these issues to be thoroughly discussed at committee stage.

Oldham East & Saddleworth – Debbie Abrahams – AGAINST

After considering the bill I have concluded I will not be supporting it on Friday.
I have a number of concerns about the Bill. Primarily I’m concerned that if the Bill was approved, society would have accepted that under certain circumstances the state will assist someone to die.

Although this Bill limits this to someone who is terminally ill with 6 months left to live, the principle for the state to assist someone to die has been accepted.
As we have seen in Canada and Belgium this has led to additional groups of people being deemed eligible for an assisted death.

I would like to see widespread access to high-quality, pain-free palliative and end of life care. People deserve dignity in dying, and each person nearing the end of their life should feel reassured and safe in the knowledge they will receive the very best care.

Oldham West – Jim McMahon – AGAINST

I’d like to thank constituents who have written to me about this issue.
I have weighed up both sides of the debate very carefully, and after much consideration, I have decided to vote against the bill.

I believe we are not yet at the stage to provide the proper safeguards to protect vulnerable people at the end of their life. Ultimately, I believe it is not the states’ role to sanction when someone should die.

It is the role of the state to keep people safe, and I don’t see that this bill will do that in its current form.  We need to focus instead on reforming our health and social care system so we can make people as comfortable as possible at the end of their life.

I recognise people in my constituency and beyond will have real experience of this and feel very strongly one way or the other.

Stalybridge & Hyde – Jonathan Reynolds – UNDECIDED

Constituents will know in the past I have always voted against proposals to change the law in this way. This is mainly because I have profound concerns about how vulnerable people could be protected should this happen.

I also know this is a very emotive subject and many people will have been personally affected by the issues it covers. I would be grateful to receive the views of constituents about this.