A cross-party group of practicing medical MPs and former NHS staff have written to MPs urging them to support the Assisted Dying Bill after the Health Secretary raised doubts about the health care system’s suitability to handle such a large implement change.
The six Labor and Conservative MPs, including two GPs and two surgeons, said they had extensive experience of working in and around palliative care and stressed that a tightly defined bill would give dying patients a real choice.
Most of the medical MPs are from the new crop – where there is fierce lobbying on both sides to win over more than 100 MPs, who are reportedly still undecided. Both parties say they expect the vote to be incredibly close, despite the initial belief that there would be majority support for the law change.
Dr. Simon Opher, the new Labor MP for Stroud, who still works as a GP, told the Guardian he would only support a bill in the narrow circumstances he believes will be defined in Kim Leadbeater’s bill – which he said would not imply that it is allowed. in severe suffering and only in terminal illness.
He said he had personally cared for at least one patient who traveled to Dignitas alone to end their life. He added that he had been begged by patients to end their suffering and felt he was unable to fulfill their sincere wishes.
The bill will have its second reading on November 29, with a free vote by MPs. But the bill’s supporters say that while there was an initial surge in support for the bill – which polls suggest is supported by a majority of voters – there are a significant number of colleagues who are hesitant. Many have been influenced by Streeting’s view that the healthcare system is in such poor shape that it is too risky to make such a change without unintended consequences.
In their letter to MPs, Opher and his co-signatories said that for too long, doctors have been “caught between the law (which prohibits any assistance in hastening the end of life) and our compassionate care for patients, which we know we want to curtail. their suffering.”
The letter is also signed by Labor MPs Dr Peter Prinsley, a consultant surgeon, Cat Eccles, a surgical ward doctor, Kevin McKenna, a former nurse, and Sadik Al-Hassan, a pharmacist, as well as Tory MPs Dr .Luke. Evans, a general practitioner, and Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst, a surgeon.
“Many of us have extensive experience in palliative and terminal care and we have been aware for years of the terrible dilemma that patients and doctors face in the final days of their lives,” the letter said.
“This parliament has a unique opportunity to bring the laws around assisted dying up to date and ensure they are fit for purpose. We appreciate that many are uncomfortable with this topic and understand their concerns. However, we also have a responsibility to reflect the current public mood, and more importantly, to be courageous enough to change the law in this difficult area for the benefit of patients.”
Leadbeater’s bill will limit assisted death to patients with a terminal illness who have less than six months to live, who must see two doctors who have a complete medical record, and who must confirm that the patient has full capacity and the makes a decision. of their own free will.
Opher and his colleagues said that the reassurance that they had control over the end of their lives was often enough to ease the mental suffering of many patients, who ultimately did not go through with the procedure.
“Many patients who sign up for assisted dying ultimately do not ask for their lives to be shortened. The reassurance of having this option is enough to relieve much of the anxiety and stress as death approaches. We do not view assisted dying as an alternative to good palliative care, but instead as an additional component of a holistic palliative care plan,” the letter said.
Opher said he knew the decision was a balance for many clinicians and said he would not support any change that forced doctors to participate in assisted dying decisions or allowed clinicians or social workers to first consider assisted dying as an option. introduce patients.
“When I speak to colleagues who have concerns, it is often about making sure the bill is absolutely watertight so that we can protect against ‘mission creep’, which is where we need to go,” he said. “It’s a very well-balanced decision, but there are costs associated with doing nothing.”