Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

On Friday 16th May, I took part in another thoughtful and, at times, poignant debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

It was not the bill itself but a number of suggested amendments that were being debated. The debate concluded with a vote on one significant proposal that would have allowed employers to prevent their staff from participating in assisted dying, regardless of individual conscience.

Officials advised this would be unworkable and after compelling arguments, particularly from Kit Malthouse MP, who highlighted the potential harm to those seeking assisted dying, I chose to vote against this amendment.

Kit Malthouse, MP, powerfully argued that while the conscientious objection of individuals should be respected, giving employers blanket power to prohibit participation risks prioritising the rights of institutions over the rights of dying individuals and could force people to uproot themselves to access the end-of-life care they choose.

“Finally, amendment (a) to new clause 10, which we might divide on this afternoon, is difficult. We debated a similar amendment in Committee. As sponsors of the Bill, we are clear that there should be a conscientious objection clause to allow individuals to opt out, and that is strengthened by new clause 10. But allowing an employer—any employer—to say that any employee in their employment cannot participate if that is what they decide seems to me a step too far, and it could prove to have unintended consequences. First, the board of every healthcare trust in the country will become a battle for control between those who oppose and those who do not. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, people may suddenly find that they have to uproot themselves, after years of living in a care home, and relocate to get the kind of death that they want. In effect, the amendment prioritises the rights of somebody who is providing accommodation over the rights of the dying. As I said on Second Reading, in my view, as they face their end, we should prioritise the rights of the dying.”

The debate also raised concerns about clinicians being prevented from sharing essential information about patients, which could affect eligibility assessments and continuity of care, particularly for part-time and locum staff working across multiple employers.

The amendment did not pass. Further votes on remaining amendments will take place on 13 June, followed by a final debate and vote that will likely decide if the Bill becomes law. I will keep you updated as this important piece of legislation makes its way through parliament.

I continue to support the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill as it progresses through Parliament.

My decision is shaped by my own principles and by the moving testimonies shared by people across Amber Valley. I am incredibly grateful to the hundreds of Amber Valley residents who have taken the time to contact me, often sharing very personal stories. Whilst opinions vary, it is clear how important this is to so many people.

I remain open-minded and committed to listening carefully and respectfully to every perspective. I am pleased to say that the discussion so far has shown deep respect for differing views, with MPs united in their determination to ensure compassion and dignity for those facing their final days.