I wanted to take the time to explain my decision to vote in favour of the Bill, and also the process that lies ahead.

The question of assisted dying is one of the most ethically complex debates we face as lawmakers. I approached my decision with immense care, seeking as much knowledge and understanding as possible. This included reading extensively on the subject, meeting with doctors, lawyers, and representatives of religious organisations, and listening to the personal stories of my constituents. I have received a huge amount of correspondence on this issue, roughly split evenly in support of and against assisted dying. I appreciate the thought and care that went into each of those letters.

One of the factors that informed my vote was the current state of our law. At present, assisted dying is effectively decriminalised for those who can afford to travel to clinics abroad, such as in Switzerland. This creates an inequitable situation where only those with financial means and the ability to travel can access this option. I believe it is wrong for the United Kingdom to “offshore” an issue that is as morally and ethically important as this.

I was also deeply moved by stories from constituents who shared the pain and suffering their loved ones endured in their final days. While I strongly advocate for better palliative care (and will continue to do so), I also recognise its limits. For those with less than six months to live, facing unrelievable suffering, the choice to end life on their terms offers a dignified alternative.

It is crucial to emphasise that my vote at this stage, or the Bill being approved, does not mean the Bill is set in stone or guaranteed to become law. This vote at the Second Reading stage is only the beginning of a long and detailed process. It represents broad support for the principles of the Bill and allows for the possibility of further debate and amendments. 

From here, the Bill will enter the Committee Stage, where it will undergo clause-by-clause scrutiny by a cross-party group of MPs. During this stage, every aspect of the Bill will be examined in detail, including the proposed safeguards. After this, the Bill will return to the House for additional debates and further votes, and the process will be repeated in the House of Lords. I will continue to advocate for the safeguards to be strengthened, and if, at any point, I am not satisfied that the safeguards are robust enough, I will withdraw my support.

I want to emphasise that I fully understand, agree with, and empathise with the concerns many people have raised about ensuring strong safeguards. Protecting vulnerable individuals from coercion or undue pressure is absolutely essential. While the Bill already includes some of the strictest safeguards of any assisted dying law in the world, I believe there is always room to strengthen them further, and I will work towards that during the legislative process.

The current safeguards include:

• The person must have a terminal illness and be expected to die within six months.
• They must demonstrate mental capacity and make a clear, informed, and voluntary decision.
• Two independent doctors must confirm eligibility.
• A High Court judge must review and approve the request.
• The individual must make two written declarations, 14 days apart, and retains the right to change their mind at any time.
• Coercion or undue influence is criminalised, with penalties of up to 14 years in prison.

These measures aim to protect the vulnerable while allowing choice for those facing unbearable suffering.

However, as the Bill progresses, I will be advocating for even greater clarity and robustness in these protections to ensure they are as strong as possible.

I have met with disabled people, listened to their concerns and I will be working to ensure that they are specifically protected by this legislation.

I respect and deeply empathise with those who oppose the bill, whether due to religious beliefs, ethical principles, or concerns about its potential impact on medical professionals. These are profound and valid arguments, and I take them seriously. I have weighed these concerns carefully, but for me, they do not outweigh the rights of individuals to avoid unnecessary suffering.

I also recognise the "slippery slope" argument—the fear that this Bill could lead to broader or unintended applications. However, the courts have made it clear that any changes to the law would require full parliamentary scrutiny and approval, ensuring that this issue remains within the control of elected representatives.

The Bill will now move to the Committee Stage, where it will face detailed examination and potential amendment. I will carefully scrutinise any changes to ensure that the safeguards remain strong and that my concerns—and those of my constituents—continue to be addressed. It is only after this process—and subsequent votes in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords—that the Bill could become law.

I do not pretend that this issue has easy answers, and I have great respect for those who hold different views. For me, this Bill is about providing dignity and choice at the end of life, but I remain deeply committed to ensuring that the law includes robust protections and reflects the gravity of the decision it allows.

I will continue to listen, reflect, and scrutinise every detail as the process moves forward and I welcome your input as this debate continues. I voted for the conversation to continue. 

Finally, I thank you for sharing your thoughts on this incredibly personal issue with me.