In a bold move, a cross-party coalition of MPs who are also practicing medics and former NHS staff has issued an appeal to their colleagues, encouraging them to support the upcoming assisted dying bill. This comes in response to the health secretary’s recent remarks expressing skepticism about whether the NHS is adequately equipped to implement such a significant legal change.
The group consists of six MPs from both Labour and Conservative parties, including two general practitioners and two surgeons, all of whom bring extensive experience in palliative care. They argue that a well-defined bill would provide dying patients with a genuine choice, enabling them to have more control over their end-of-life decisions.
Most of these medical MPs are part of a newer intake, where intense lobbying efforts are underway from both sides of the debate, particularly to sway over 100 MPs who are still undecided. Initial expectations suggested there would be a majority in favor of the bill, but both proponents and opponents anticipate that the vote will be exceedingly close.
Dr. Simon Opher, a newly elected Labour MP for Stroud who continues to practice as a general practitioner, shared his thoughts with the Guardian. He emphasized that he would only support a bill that strictly delineates circumstances under which assisted dying would be permitted—specifically, cases of terminal illness rather than cases of chronic suffering. Opher recounted a poignant personal experience, revealing that he has cared for patients who sought to travel alone to Dignitas to end their lives. He expressed his frustration at being unable to fulfill their genuine wishes to alleviate their suffering.
The bill is slated for its second reading on November 29, during which MPs will cast a free vote. Although initial enthusiasm for the proposal surged—supported by polling that indicates a majority of voters favor the change—backers of the bill are aware of a notable contingent of wavering MPs. Many of these members have been influenced by the health secretary’s assertion that the NHS is currently in a precarious state, making it risky to implement such a change without unforeseen consequences.
In their letter to fellow MPs, Dr. Opher and his colleagues stated that medical professionals have long found themselves trapped between the existing legal framework, which prohibits any assistance in hastening death, and their compassionate duty to care for patients who wish to end their suffering.
The letter has garnered signatures from several prominent figures, including Labour MPs Dr. Peter Prinsley, a consultant surgeon; Cat Eccles, an operating department practitioner; Kevin McKenna, a former nurse; and Sadik Al-Hassan, a pharmacist. Additionally, it includes support from Conservative MPs Dr. Luke Evans, a GP, and Dr. Neil Shastri-Hurst, a surgeon.
“We are well aware of the terrible dilemmas faced by patients and clinicians during the final days of life,” the letter states. “This Parliament has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to modernize the laws surrounding assisted dying, ensuring they are fit for purpose. While we understand the discomfort many feel about this topic, we also have a duty to reflect the current sentiment among the population and courageously change the law in this challenging area for the benefit of patients.”
Leadbeater’s bill proposes that assisted dying be limited to patients diagnosed with terminal illnesses who have less than six months to live. Patients would need to consult with two doctors who have access to their complete medical records, and both doctors must confirm the patient’s mental capacity and that the decision is made voluntarily.
Opher and his colleagues contend that the assurance of having control over the end of their lives often alleviates the mental distress of many patients, leading some to ultimately forgo the procedure. “Many patients who initially express a desire for assisted dying do not ultimately choose to end their lives. The reassurance of having this option can significantly reduce the anxiety and stress associated with facing death. We believe that assisted dying should not be viewed as a replacement for effective palliative care, but rather as an integral component of a comprehensive palliative care strategy,” the letter articulates.
Dr. Opher acknowledged the delicate balance many medical professionals feel regarding this issue. He stressed that he would not support any changes that might compel doctors to participate in assisted dying decisions or allow medical professionals to propose assisted dying as an option to patients.
“When I engage with colleagues who express concerns, they often emphasize the need for the bill to be thoroughly defined to prevent any potential ‘mission creep.’ This is where we need to arrive—ensuring that the legislation is watertight. It is a finely balanced decision, but we must also recognize the cost of inaction.”