How did Liberal Democrat MPs vote on the Assisted Dying Bill?

Yesterday the House of Commons voted to reject the Assisted Dying Bill at its first stage by a majority of 330 votes to 118.

How, then, did Liberal Democrat MPs vote? It should be noted that although the party has policy in favour of assisted dying in England and Wales, our MPs’ right to vote according to their conscience is enshrined in both motions. We have been criticised in the past for publishing who votes what way in these sorts of votes, but the information is a matter of public record and there is no reason that we shouldn’t draw it to our readers’ attention.

Sadly, looking through the lists for our MPs is a lot easier than it used to be. Three, Tom Brake, Alistair Carmichael and Norman Lamb (who explained his position to LDV readers last night) supported the Bill. Three, John Pugh, Mark Williams and Nick Clegg, opposed it and two, Tim Farron and Greg Mulholland, didn’t vote.

Their contributions to the debate are as follows:

John Pugh:

I am unpersuaded by the promoter of the Bill. I agonise over this issue, because death and the manner of our death should trouble us all. I do not entirely trust my own instincts on this, so I took the trouble of going to my local hospice, Queenscourt hospice, to hear from staff there what their advice was on this Bill. After all, they see death on a regular basis—daily, hourly, weekly. They oppose this Bill strongly, emphatically and definitely, and endorse the stance I shall be taking.

The thing we must recognise is that we all have a terminal disease called life. None of us get out of here alive, and some of us are nearer the door than others. It is hard to imagine how we would feel if the exact timing or manner of our death became more clear. We must admit that there are, perhaps rarely, bad deaths and troubling deaths, although, as anyone in medical practice will tell us, they are decreasing and are far less in evidence than they used to be. But the weakness of the Bill is that it provides no real solutions to the issues that concern most people and it creates a raft of other problems we do not currently have.

It is a misnomer to refer to the Bill as proposing assisted dying. Dying is legally assisted in a range of ways every day—physically, emotionally and spiritually, and specifically by the hospice movement. The Bill is about assisted suicide. My intervention on the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) was not trivial, because the language is crucial here. If we are to understand the moral facts and look reality in the face, we have to call things by their proper name. I am reminded of the Americans in Vietnam referring to dead civilians as “collateral damage”. We are talking about assisted suicide, and there is no essential right for people to demand of the state that it assists them with their suicide. In fact, it is the policy of Governments to reduce the number of suicides, and normally it is our moral duty to discourage suicide.

Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that anyone who has any knowledge of suicide sees it as a desperate and tragic act, committed by somebody in extreme emotional distress? It is usually committed alone, leaving families and loved ones devastated. The desire of a dying person for a peaceful death is so different from what I have just described, and anyone who has any knowledge of suicide would share that view. I believe the hon. Gentleman’s argument to be null and void on that point about suicide.

John Pugh: The default position is to discourage people from committing suicide, because suicide is most frequently the action of desperate people who are not getting the help they require. I believe that is acknowledged by the sponsors of the Bill, because they are suggesting that assisted suicide should take place only in special, carefully defined circumstances. Their Bill would put in place a series of provisions, which we have all read, to explain how we can be sure that these conditions actually apply. They are talking about this being a relatively limited exception and it is seemingly tightly drawn.

Let me make some huge, bold assumptions that I would not naturally make. Let me assume that these provisions, although not so far fully defined, would work perfectly, without abuse or uncertainty, and that this Bill is all that its sponsors want or are contriving. Therefore, this will not be like what happens in Switzerland, Belgium or Holland, and people will still have to go to Switzerland if they feel that their life is intolerable, unless they are likely to die anyway within six months. People may also still die undignified and unfortunate deaths, regardless of their prior wishes, if they cannot display current mental capacity. Those would be the consequences of the Bill. Paradoxically, the more likely it is that someone’s end would be undignified, the less likely it is that they will be judged to have the capacity to comply with the legislation. In reality, what this Bill permits is for a strictly limited number of people to have their suicides assisted, regardless of whether their anticipated end is painless or pain-free, dignified or not. That is what the proposals actually amount to.

Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con): Does the hon. Gentleman also recognise that except for in its exclusion, the Bill does not contain any recognition of the patient’s family? Therefore, this Bill would do exactly what we are seeking not to do: it would force the individual to be on their own and the family to be excluded.

It is fair to say that regardless of what people may expect of this Bill—we saw some mistakes in the contribution made by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer)—what it will do is not what most of the supporters of the Bill expect it to do. What it will do is generate certain very obvious risks, which have been well highlighted by other Members and so I will not go over them again. The risks are simply that the elderly and infirm will be pressured, doctors’ motives will be questioned or confused, palliative care will be progressed less and suicide will be seen as a solution more, and life will be treated more casually—more as a disposable commodity. The social consequences are, to say the least, incalculable; we cannot be certain about them. But even if there is just one poor old soul—and, strangely enough, it is usually the old who die—who, under pressure, seeks a quick dispatch, it does matter. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West could not rule out that possibility, and clearly recognised that that could be a consequence.

In conclusion, this week started for most of us with the haunting picture of a single child drowned on a beach. It was just one life and it affected the whole country. The consequence that can be drawn is that, as a civilisation, we cannot be casual about life without becoming a different sort of civilisation.

Alistair Carmichael (in an intervention to Lyn Brown, a Labour MP_

The hon. Lady is talking about the consequences of giving the Bill a Second Reading. Will she address for a second, though, the consequences of not giving the Bill a Second Reading? Assisted suicide will be available; it will simply be available to those who have the means and the determination to go elsewhere. What does she think should happen for these people, and for those who are currently protected from prosecution by the DPP’s guidelines?

Norman Lamb:

I thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) for giving us the opportunity to debate this most profound of issues, one that concerns so many people across our country, whichever side of the debate they may be on. I also thank the right hon. Members for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and for North Somerset (Dr Fox) for expressing the importance of us demonstrating mutual respect in this debate, and for acknowledging the profound importance of this for people on both sides. We should be able to debate it in a decent way that fully respects that.

I have changed my mind on this issue. I used to oppose change, but I am now very clear in my mind that reform is necessary. We are all shaped by the conversations we have and by our own personal experiences, sometimes within our own families. Talking to people who are terminally ill has forced me to think about the principles at stake and led me to change my mind. I came to this view through one man in particular, Douglas Harding, who, for six years, has lived with terminal cancer, and is now very close to the end. When I hear him argue the case to me about his right to decide when to end his life as he faces the closing stages of a terminal illness, I find it impossible to reject that right. When I ask myself what I would want in those circumstances—whether I would want that right—I am very clear in my mind that I would. I do not know whether I would exercise it, but I would absolutely want it for myself. How can I then deny it to others?

I speak as a former Care Minister and I was driven in that job by an absolute determination to improve end-of-life care and to ensure people are treated with absolute dignity in the final stages of their life. One of the issues I had to deal with was the Liverpool Care Pathway and the abuses that sometimes took place under that name. I had many conversations with the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and we found ourselves on the same side of the argument. We both had deep concerns about some of the things that had happened under the Liverpool Care Pathway and, as a result of the review that I called, the Liverpool Care Pathway is no longer used. The approach taken is that it is the individual’s own priorities that are paramount. Are we really saying that that principle, which applies to issues such as resuscitation where one wants to die, suddenly does not apply when we get to the most profound of questions? At that point, the individual has no right and is left at the mercy of the state’s decision. As the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) said, this is a matter of personal freedom. For me, that is very clear.

Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Norman Lamb: I would prefer to make my case, because I want to ensure that others can make their case, too.

Questions have been raised about whether implementing this proposed legislation would have a negative impact on palliative care. For goodness’ sake, it is up to this House and the Governments we elect to ensure that there is decent palliative care in our country. It is up to us to make that decision. It is a dishonest argument to suggest that it would undermine palliative care. In the United States, Oregon is one of the best States for access to specialist palliative care. It is totally consistent with the principle I expressed earlier that in those last stages of life it is the individual’s priorities and wishes that should be paramount.

I just want to say a word about the current law, which puts families in the most invidious position. I applaud the former Director of Public Prosecutions for the guidelines that advanced the position very considerably. However, if someone acts out of absolute compassion, they are still left with their home being declared a crime scene and with a police investigation. As the guidelines point out, the person is referred to as a “suspect”. Someone who has acted out of compassion for a loved one is treated as a suspect, waiting perhaps months to know their fate—whether they will be prosecuted—while they are experiencing bereavement. That is surely an intolerable position. We then have the grotesque situation where those people who have money are able to go to Dignitas, an alien clinic in another country. Someone who is dying is expected to travel to another country to exercise their right. Those who do not have money are left with the invidious choice of struggling on regardless, perhaps in the face of impossible pain, or committing suicide in very difficult circumstances. I find that absolutely intolerable.

J.S. Mill said:

“The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

We should respect that sovereignty and pass the Bill.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

18 Comments

  • It’s essentially a conscience issue but for liberals it should be a principle. What is a liberal party that doesn’t stand for individual liberties and personal freedoms? Nothing,

    So when it came to it, we had a quarter of Lib Dem MPs on the fence and refusing to take a position with their vote and those who did equally split down the middle. You couldn’t actually make that up!

    What do the Lib Dems stand for? What do they believe in? What is the purpose of their party in real policy terms, not abstract concepts but what real policies are they committed to?

  • Caron Lindsay Caron Lindsay 12th Sep '15 - 2:06pm

    I have very strong views on this, and they are very much in favour of this Bill. However, I do think that this is one of these issues where it is possible to come to either conclusion from a liberal perspective. Not wanting people to be exploited is a reasonable position – although it is not confined to opponents of the Bill.

  • Not for the first time words fail me when I see how our ‘liberal’ MPs behave!
    I am all for freedom of conscience for the moralists and religious, or even just squeamish, but I am not warm about their acting to impose their views or beliefs on everyone else. I have read John Pugh’s sophistry in defence of his position, and it reminds me of some of the similar prevarication over SSM. The stance of those opposed is surely much the same as running an animal in the road over and then driving away rather than putting it out of its misery. In fact, the continuation of the status quo is worse, because it allows those just about able to travel and to afford to do so to go and die alone in another country, and leaves the rest to suffer in silence to appease MPs’ ‘consciences’. Still, I suppose, out of sight and out of mind.
    And for the record, I do have some beliefs and think that I would never choose that route – I just wouldn’t deny someone else access to it just because of that.
    Finally, and just saying, but it seems extraordinary that the new leader abstained.

  • PHIL THOMAS 12th Sep '15 - 4:28pm

    Why didn’t Tim Farron vote. He has not got off to a good start. Already ducking issues.

  • Peter Hayes 12th Sep '15 - 8:55pm

    I do not know about the wording of this particular bill. Both of my Grandmothers died in their sleep so no question. Both Grandfathers had a slow death but did not express a wish to die as far as I remember as a child. Both of my parents were ready to die, my father at 90, refused food and gave up in a very caring home who let him go rather than hospital and drips. My mother was a more difficult case, we were called to a hospital discharge meeting where the only option was to move out of NHS care to a home with 24h nursing cover, not her home, which she would have to pay for even though incapable of signing a contract with the new home. She died a few days later, perhaps because they increased the morphine dose. What is needed is palliative care paid for by the NHS but provided by a mix of charities and hospitals so the option is not assisted death but a good peaceful death.

  • George Kendall 12th Sep '15 - 10:09pm

    @Peter Hayes

    I was lucky. Both my parents had excellent care in their final weeks. My impression is the NHS staff did everything possible.

    Over the weeks my father passed away, they were very accommodating to us as a family, as we mounted a round-the-clock vigil around his bedside. They involving us his care in the last few days, which I found comforting. While it was terrible at the time, I look back on it as a beautiful memory.

    But many don’t have that support. There isn’t enough palliative care provision. And, while I disagreed with this bill, if the debate around it highlights the importance of good funding for end-of-life care, then it is a good thing.

  • Sorry, I have been a life long Liberal supporter (and agent, and candidate) but this is the final straw. Our new leader ducking the vote, only three MPs in favour.
    This is an issue of personal freedom in potentially the most important issue to face any individual. I would have hoped we could have led this fight, and equated liberalism with something people feel strongly about, but no – we will just hope something turns up meanwhile we stand for nothing.
    But unfortunately it isn’t we any more.!

  • I don’t understand TimFarron abstaining. As a person of strong religious belief, I thought he would vote against? I just don’t know what he stands for anymore.

    and why are the Lib Dems not saying anything about palliative care? They seem to spend more time talking about Labour than issues which affect ordinary people in our day to day lives.

  • Simon Thorley 13th Sep '15 - 12:24am

    As I mentioned on the Norman Lamb thread on this, there are many reasons to oppose assisted suicide – but not from a liberal position. If we don’t stand for personal freedom, what are we here for? Other political opinions are very adequately catered for in other political parties.

  • Toby Keynes 13th Sep '15 - 9:34am

    The bill was defeated because a majority of MPs believed that freedom of choice for people who are terminally ill to choose an assisted death should be rejected because:
    * nobody should have the right to make that choice, on principle;
    * or the choice would do too much damage to other people, or to society;
    * or they would make that choice for the wrong reasons;
    * or too many of them would be pressured into making the choice.
    3 LibDem MPs voting for, 3 against and 2 not participating may appear less than convincing, but the overall result was a three-to-one vote against the bill. So, as one would hope, Liberal Democrat MPs have given greater weighting to personal freedom of choice, and less weighting to rationales for denying that freedom.
    Similarly, the Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill was heavily defeated earlier in Scotland earlier this year, but we were the only party to vote for it by a majority (even if that was a majority of 1).
    Both in the UK and in Scotland, this is still well behind popular support for the right to die, and very disappointing, but in matters of personal freedom we remain by some distance the most liberal party both at Westminster and in Holyrood.

  • Rather concerned to see that Tim Farron didn’t vote. Meaningful leadership is about standing up and being counted!

  • If a political issue has a religious element Tim does seem to have a tendency towards abstention. If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.

  • Mark Robinson 13th Sep '15 - 10:03pm

    As a new member I find this deeply disappointing from the parliamentary party.

    Surely the essence of a liberal philosophy is to empower and then trust the individual to make educated choices?

    We now have a moral fudge where choice is restricted to those who can afford the Swiss solution.

    Given the noise being generated to the left and right we need to actively take thought leadership to articulate and then lead on issues that actually resonate with the vast majority of the UK such as this.

  • Matt (Bristol) 14th Sep '15 - 12:01am

    Feel strongly that this should NOT be a test issue for LibDems.

    Liberalism should be a broad intellectual and political tradition a coalition of likeminded but differing perspectives, not endlessly defined by multiple purity tests and acts of symbolic unity.

    It would be the same (for me, at least) as proposing that all LibDems should be republicans, or all should be teetotallers. Both have been recurrently present in liberal history and thinking, but they have never dominated to the exclusion of alternatives. Same applies here.

  • Matthew Huntbach 14th Sep '15 - 10:49am

    There’s an elderly relative whose house you stand to inherit, and that relative is sick and needs residential care, but may not actually die for many years. The residential care will be paid for by selling off that house.

    What do you do?

    Subtle (or not so subtle) hints that the relative should do what would become the “decent thing” if this bill had been passed, I think.

    That’s the dilemma, and I’m sorry that so many people who were for this bill seem unable to recognise that an elderly and sick person may not be in a position where they can very easily exercise their own freedom on this issue and able to resist emotional pressure put on them when their carers are also the main beneficiaries of their early deaths.

  • Richard Underhill 14th Sep '15 - 11:52pm

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Mohammed Amin
    I fail to understand the basis for Samuel Jackson's objections. He clearly believes in local democracy. Calderdale Council is the elected body with responsib...
  • John Marriott
    Yes, I have to agree that some people in Israel and on the US evangelical right appear to be getting what they want. Sadly, in their opposition to the creation ...
  • Cllr Donna Harris
    Huge congratulations, Roderick, on all your efforts, success and for working cross-party on this important issue! As Leader of the Opposition in Lambeth, we ...
  • John Marriott
    @Samuel Jackson They missed a trick there then. Where are the barricades?!...
  • Samuel James Jackson
    Hi John Marriot, I would like to clarify that proposals for the Sowerby Bridge incinerator does not include plans for electricity generation....