Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Wendy Morton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater]

I wholeheartedly agree. I am setting out what we are dealing with now. This cannot be right, and surely we have a duty to do something about it.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am going to make some progress, if that is okay.

Some of the most important voices in this debate are, of course, those of people currently living with a terminal illness. Having a terminal diagnosis is perhaps one of those situations where it is very hard, if not impossible, to know how we would feel. I have met many terminally ill people over recent weeks and every one of them is in my thoughts today.

Sophie, who is here today, was diagnosed with stage 4 secondary breast cancer, which has spread to her lungs, liver and pelvis. She is allergic to opioids, so she knows that her pain is very unlikely to be able to be managed. She has a 17-year-old daughter. All she asks is to have the choice to say goodbye to her daughter at a time of her choosing, in circumstances that she can have some control over, and for her daughter to be able to remember her as the vibrant, positive woman she is.

Nathaniel, who also joins us today, has stage 4 incurable bowel cancer, which is now in his liver and brain. Like many of us, Nat says that he does not know whether he would choose an assisted death or not, but he simply cannot understand why anyone would want to deny him the choice. He says:

“I wish to live as fully as I can and for as long as possible. But when the time comes”,

Nat also wants

“the right to die with dignity and compassion”.

Another very emotional lady came up to me at a recent interfaith event. She and her husband thanked me for putting the Bill forward. She said, “Kim, I am a proud Christian and I am guided by my faith. But I also have terminal cancer and I want the right to choose a compassionate death.”

There has been much discussion about the views of people who hold religious beliefs. I fully respect those beliefs and do not intend to say much more about this, other than that I know there are a range of views within faith communities. Indeed, some of the most powerful conversations that I have had have been with people of faith, including in my own constituency. People of different religions have said that although they would not choose an assisted death for themselves or their family, who are they to stop someone else who may want to make that choice?

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

This is the first time I have spoken in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I assure you that I will keep my comments short and respectful, and respectful of others. I am also conscious that none of us in this place underestimates the enormity of the decision that we face today. I do not believe it is a heart or a head decision; that over-simplifies a very complex matter.

I have no doubt at all about the sincerity of the intentions of the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) in bringing forward this Bill, but I would just gently say that in this place, good intentions do not always yield the good results that we might all strive for. As I have monitored the progress of the Bill, I have continued to struggle with it, and nothing in it has changed my mind. The importance of these debates is monumental; that is underpinned by the literally thousands of comments and emails I have had from my constituents in Aldridge, Brownhills. Some have been writing to me on this matter since before the first debate at the end of November.

As the Bill has proceeded through this place, I have also struggled with the way that it has been likened to previous moral and ethical legislation; I would argue that the process is very different from that which went before. Hon. Members are correct that some of the most pioneering social legislation of the post-war period was introduced via private Members’ Bills, most notably the Abortion Act 1967 and the Sexual Offences Act 1967, which decriminalised homosexuality. It would be remiss of me not to point out that both those Bills went through an extensive, Government-led public inquiry, which paved the way for legislation. A medical advisory committee, under the chairmanship of Sir John Peel, considered the Abortion Bill, and the Wolfenden committee considered the laws on homosexuality. I am afraid that advice is sadly lacking for this Bill. The Government have set up a wide range of policy reviews, and it would have been totally appropriate for such a review to have been sought on this matter.

Much has also been made in this debate of the idea that the Bill is a slippery slope, and that in the future the Bill will be extended and extended; that point is made because of what we see in other countries. As a modern society, we must come to terms with having a conversation and a debate on death. I do not believe that today has to be the end of that conversation, but I genuinely do not believe that the Bill is in the right place to go forward to the House of Lords, and I will therefore vote against it.