Assisted dying is a controversial subject and incredibly complex issue

MEL STRIDE IS THE CONSERVATIVE MP FOR CENTRAL DEVON

THIS MONTH there will be a vote in the House of Commons on whether to allow adults who are terminally ill to be assisted to end their own life, subject to safeguards. Labour MP, Kim Leadbeater, presented the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill to Parliament last month, having been drawn first in the Private Members’ Bills ballot.

Assisted dying is a controversial subject that lies at an intersection of various ethical, moral, legal, and medical issues. In terms of the new bill it involves a medical professional providing the means or information for a terminally ill person to end their own life, typically to alleviate intractable suffering.

A similar bill to legalise assisted dying in the UK was debated but ultimately defeated in 2015. I was one of 27 Conservative MPs who voted in favour of the Bill.

It is my view that terminally ill individuals should have maximum opportunity to control the end of their life, but people must not be allowed to use any legislation to cajole others into taking these kinds of decisions when it's not in their best interests. For this reason, it is an incredibly complex issue.

As medical science advances and societal attitudes evolve, the dialogue around assisted dying will continue to change and I therefore feel it is right that MPs have another chance to vote on this matter again.

One of the primary arguments in favour of assisted dying is the alleviation of physical and emotional suffering. For terminally ill patients facing excruciating pain, assisted suicide offers a sense of control and dignity at the end of life.

Advocates argue that competent adults should have the individual autonomy to make decisions about their own bodies and that life should not be prolonged at all costs, especially if its quality has significantly deteriorated.

On the other side of the argument, opponents argue that life is inherently valuable and facilitating death undermines this principle. Religious and cultural perspectives view life as sacred and argue that ending it prematurely, even to alleviate suffering, is morally wrong.

The main worry for many people opposed to legalising assisted dying is the potential for abuse. And that it is difficult to legislate to mitigate the risk of coercion, meaning vulnerable individuals might feel pressured to end their lives to avoid being a burden on their families or society.

There are some who argue that this is a slippery slope, and fear expansion beyond terminally ill patients to include those with disabilities, mental illnesses, or chronic conditions. There are also wider societal implications for normalising suicide, which could negatively impact mental health support systems.

People on both sides of the argument present strong cases for and against. I will want to look at the Bill in full before coming to a decision on how I will vote, but I would be particularly interested to hear constituent views on this matter.

If I am your MP, please do consider writing to me at mel.stride.mp@parliament.uk