Imagine your frightened mother is given a terminal diagnosis and her doctor suggests ending her life - we must stop this - Miriam Cates

You, as next of kin, are not informed, have no chance to reassure her that she is loved and wanted, or even to say goodbye. Your mother may have had months or even years more to live, to spend with her children and grandchildren.

Her pain and discomfort could have been well controlled so allowing her to live life to the full. But instead, in an act of cold convenience, she was prompted into suicide by the State.

It sounds like a dystopian nightmare, but this may become our new reality if the MPs currently scrutinising assisted suicide legislation continue to reject any and all attempts to introduce meaningful safeguards into the Bill.

At the first stage—confusingly known as ‘Second Reading’— of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in November, 330 MPs voted in favour, with 275 against.

However, dozens of MPs who voted for the Bill at this stage raised concerns at the current lack of safeguards for vulnerable people, who might be coerced or misled into taking their own lives.

They demanded reassurances from the Bill’s sponsor, Kim Leadbeater MP, that the text of the legislation would be dramatically improved through amendments in Committee Stage, the next step in the parliamentary process.

Yet despite warm words and numerous promises from the Bill’s advocates, supporters of assisted suicide on the small committee of MPs examining the legislation have this week rejected almost every attempt to make the Bill safer.

MPs on the committee have a serious moral responsibility to consider the long-term consequences of introducing assisted suicide, particularly for the most vulnerable such as those with learning difficulties, mental illness and victims of abuse.

But at present, the pro-assisted suicide MPs, who make up the majority of the committee members, seem more interested in rushing the Bill through to score a political victory than in taking their ethical duties seriously.

This week alone, the committee rejected dozens of amendments aimed at improving safeguards for vulnerable individuals. Notably, protections for individuals with Down’s syndrome and autism were rejected.

MPs rejected an amendment to require that a patient’s mental capacity be proven beyond reasonable doubt before assisted suicide could be approved.

The committee rejected attempts to limit the Bill’s currently broad eligibility criteria that would allow individuals to be deemed eligible for assisted suicide even if they were also depressed, suicidal, marginalised, or made to feel a burden by others.

For example, the Bill allows individuals to seek assisted death for reasons such as saving family money, rather than suffering from pain.

The committee discussed the inherent danger of allowing doctors to raise the topic of assisted suicide with patients, which could create a power imbalance and unduly influence vulnerable individuals.

Critics like Juliet Campbell MP and Danny Kruger MP argued that doctors should not be permitted to suggest assisted suicide unprompted, as it could undermine a patient's autonomy and influence their decision.

They also questioned the appropriateness of introducing assisted suicide as a medical option at all, with Kruger suggesting that if it is not a “healthcare” treatment, doctors should have no business in promoting it.

Yet the Bill’s supporters on the committee rejected amendments that would have prevented doctors from suggesting suicide to vulnerable patients.

An important concern with the current legislation is that patients who are in shock having just received a terminal diagnosis will be able to request assisted suicide and end their lives rapidly.

In the UK, a ‘cooling off period’ is mandatory even for the purchase of car insurance; yet under the legislation before Parliament, MPs voted down an amendment requiring a period of 28 days after a terminal diagnosis before a “preliminary discussion” about assisted suicide can take place.

Again and again, MPs who support assisted suicide rejected important attempts to protect the vulnerable.

In defending this stance, Government Minister Stephen Kinnock—who claims to be ‘neutral’ on the issue—used the extraordinary argument that the Bill needed to be kept ‘simple’, emphasising operational concerns over complexity and ethical safeguards.

Government ministers don’t usually object to legislative ‘complexity’ even in relatively trivial areas of statute such as tax law, so to play fast and loose with the lives of the vulnerable for ‘operational reasons’ is frankly outrageous.

LATEST MEMBERSHIP OPINION:

• The biggest threat to this country is not fighting foreign wars it’s protecting our borders
• As a farmer, there's one thing that annoys us more than anything else about Starmer - James Wright
• While you're distracted, Starmer is committing an act of treasonous self-harm on UK - Alex Story

In sum, over 100 amendments designed to strengthen safeguards for vulnerable people have now been rejected by the committee.

As a result, the Bill fails adequately to protect British citizens from the danger of being coerced into ending their lives, or from making a decision to die at a moment of acute distress when they might later change their mind if they were allowed to live.

There is currently no requirement for relatives to be informed, or even for patients to be in pain in order to be ‘accepted’ for death.

At the end of the committee stage, all MPs will have a second chance to vote on the legislation at the Bill’s third reading.

Those who voted in favour at second reading on the condition that the Bill was made safer now have an important decision to make.

No reasonable, truthful person can argue that the Bill has been improved. In fact, its flaws have been brutally exposed in Committee Stage, its proponents have implied that they are already considering expanding eligibility, and the one important safeguard included in the original text—the involvement of a High Court Judge—has been abandoned.

Any MP who now votes for the Bill does so in the full knowledge that vulnerable people will die, frightened people will be coerced, suicide rates—both assisted and otherwise—will likely increase, doctor-patient trust will be permanently undermined and, for the first time since capital punishment was abolished in 1969, the State will have the power to end citizens’ lives.

In every single international jurisdiction where assisted suicide has been introduced, its scope and impact has expanded, usually rapidly.

In Canada, assisted suicide is now responsible for 5% of all deaths. In the Netherlands, euthanasia is now available to people with treatable mental health conditions and even to children. Should the Leadbeater Bill pass, it is frankly unthinkable that the UK won’t follow the same path.

An MP’s first duty is not to their Party, their social media followers or even their constituents. Their first duty is to the nation, to act and vote in a way that promotes the common good of our country and safeguards our fundamental values—such as the value of every individual life—for future generations.

For MPs who have previously expressed support for the assisted suicide bill, there will be a personal cost for changing their mind publicly.

But the rewards of courage are eternal; if ever there is a time for MPs to follow their consciences, it is now.