Today, Parliament returns to the difficult and deeply personal question of assisted dying, as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill receives its Second Reading in the House of Commons.
This issue has generated a huge amount of correspondence from constituents, and I want to thank everyone who has taken the time to write to me whether you support a change in the law or strongly oppose it.
I have heard from people who have watched loved ones experience terrible suffering at the end of their lives, as well as those who fear that changing the law could place vulnerable people at risk or create pressures on those who feel they are a burden.
These concerns deserve to be taken seriously.
When the previous Bill came before Parliament, I voted in favour of allowing it to continue its parliamentary journey. Having since listened to constituents, healthcare professionals and disability campaigners, my position has not changed. If I had the opportunity to vote today, I would vote in favour again.
For me, this ultimately comes down to the principle of choice.
I believe terminally ill people should, within a carefully constructed and robustly safeguarded legal framework, have the opportunity to make decisions about the end of their lives.
That choice should not be available only to those with wealth or privilege. It should be about fairness and dignity, and ensuring people are not forced to endure suffering they consider unbearable simply because they have no other option.
But supporting assisted dying does not mean taking the concerns surrounding it lightly.
The Bill sets out defined criteria and safeguards intended to ensure that any decision is clear, settled, informed and voluntary. Those safeguards must be robust. Concerns around coercion, exploitation, financial pressure, disability and the potential for the law to change further must all be properly examined.
That is the purpose of parliamentary scrutiny: to challenge, improve and test legislation. I want to see that process carried out thoroughly.
Another important theme in the correspondence I have received has been the need for better palliative and end-of-life care. I completely agree.
Assisted dying must never become a substitute for high-quality palliative care. Nobody should feel that they have to choose death because they cannot access appropriate care, pain relief, support or dignity in the final stages of their life.
If the law changes, I want to see investment in palliative and end-of-life care alongside it. People deserve to live for as long as possible with comfort, support and dignity, while those who are terminally ill and suffering should have the right to consider an assisted death within a properly safeguarded system.
I also want to be clear that supporting this legislation does not mean believing everyone who opposes it is wrong.
I have listened to disability campaigners, healthcare professionals, families and constituents with deeply held views on both sides. All of these voices matter.
My responsibility as an MP is not simply to count letters for and against or for. It is to listen, understand the arguments, examine the evidence and make the best judgement I can on behalf of the people I represent.
The previous Bill passed the Commons in June 2025 but did not complete its passage through the House of Lords before the parliamentary session ended. This new Bill now begins that parliamentary journey again.
There is still a great deal of work ahead.
I will continue to listen to constituents, examine the detail of the legislation and argue for a system that puts dignity, compassion, fairness and robust safeguards at its heart.
My position remains that a terminally ill person should have the right to make an informed choice about the end of their life.
But if we are going to change the law, we must get it right.
This is a difficult debate. It deserves nothing less than honesty, compassion and respect from all of us.
