WWho would have guessed? Debate in the House of Commons is a partisan matter, too often punctuated by jeers and shouting. There, reason is replaced by dogma and petulance. This was a completely different occasion. On the best course of action for Congress. When necessary, people are mostly polite and agree to disagree. Deputies listened in silence. Some people shed tears. Even more remarkable was the sense that there was intelligent life there. The quality of the discussions was above average.
Again, this was no ordinary discussion. Most Fridays, Westminster is a ghost town, with MPs back home thinking about their constituencies. But this was an exception. The day a private lawmaker's bill to legalize assisted dying for terminally ill patients took its first step toward becoming law. When men and women of faith try to imagine making laws for those who don't believe.
I could feel the passion. Importance. Parliament often feels far away. This was a law that could impact us all at a time when we needed it most. After all, death is the only certainty. All that matters is timing and method.
Here, the chamber was packed throughout the five hours of debate. Members of Congress were then free to vote according to their conscience. The government doesn't allow this kind of thing very often. We may end up with much better laws. Heaven forbid that. The bill easily passed second reading by a margin of 330 to 275, which was not as close as some had expected.
This was Labor backbencher Kim Leadbeater's bill, so she was the first to speak. A horror story of people dying in agony, a death no one would wish on their worst enemy. Jenny, a guide dog, was falling asleep in the aisle. Her dreams were not thwarted. She knew that when the time came, her end would be swift and painless. Even if it wasn't something she consciously chose.
Leadbeater spoke through his mechanic. This was not a matter of life or death. It was do or die. Only adults who were given less than six months to live were eligible, but even then two doctors and a judge had to give the go-ahead. Various opponents intervened to raise the issue of coercion. It is not because families pressure their sick relatives to commit suicide, but because terminally ill patients believe they have a social obligation to die quickly.
There was no easy answer to this. We were trading in imperfections. There were no certainties in life. But it would have been much better to have had a situation where these conversations were public. Where doctors were watching for signs of coercion. Because whether terminally ill patients are allowed assisted dying or not, they should still have the same feelings.
And why shouldn't saving a relative from the pain of your death be a small part of the choice to end your life?Currently, 600 terminally ill patients commit suicide each year. Those who can afford it go to Dignitas. Often we act alone and sooner than would be ideal, so as not to lead our loved ones into sin. Is that more humane than a medically sanctioned death at home? Some terminally ill patients may still wish to commit suicide. This bill is for them, Leadbeater said.
Oliver Dowden interrupted to suggest that the justices would inevitably try to expand the bill's scope. He seemed to think all judges were born murderers. They are not satisfied with just dispatching terminally ill patients, and immediately begin efforts to make them fully recover. Oddly enough, when it came to voting, Olive walked out to Ilobby. Again, he probably thinks it's a good thing for the judge to kill as many people as possible. I think that's an opinion.
Conservative MP Danny Kruger began his speech in opposition to the bill, saying it cared for people whose lives would be extended against their wishes. His solution was better palliative and hospice care. It sounded great. However, no government has been prepared to adequately fund it so far. Not enough to go around. Furthermore, palliative care has its limitations. There are some conditions that morphine is not suitable for. Unbearable pain. And most people don't want to die in a state of unconsciousness.
Danny recommended it to his doctor as well. They were basically killers as well. Never encounter a patient you don't think would be better off dead. It is best not to give the doctor any more excuses. Going to see his doctor must be an awkward experience for him. I have no idea if I'll make it out alive.
The quality of the discussions was uniformly high. Labour's Florence Eshalomi and the Conservative Party's Kit Malthouse performed well despite advocating opposing positions. Veteran Conservative MP David Davis voted in favor of the bill and argued for continued debate. Otherwise, it will be left alone for at least 10 years. If you are concerned about inconsistencies or mission progression, you can make corrections at a later stage.
However, there were exceptions. James Cleverley once again disproved nominative determinism, arguing that if the Bill was so good, why didn't it apply to children as well? Really. Honest Bob Jenrick used his time to give the ECHR another shot. Everything wrong with his world begins in Strasbourg. The Independent's Adnan Hussain believed that assisted dying had already begun by abolishing the winter fuel allowance. This was the only time cries of “shame” were heard during the discussion.
Shortly before the debate ended, Keir Starmer, who had just summarily sacked Transport Secretary Louise Hague, finally appeared in the House of Commons. After the vote was announced by the chair, there was a brief moment of silence. When time seems to have stopped. No one could fully believe what they had done. Changes as momentous as marriage equality and the abolition of the death penalty are afoot. Esther Rantzen made a statement on television. The Commons then returned to discussing ferrets. Keep it real.
-
Take the Read by John Crace is published by Little, Brown (£18.99). To support the Guardian and Observer, order your copy here: guardianbookshop.com. Shipping charges may apply.
