§ Mr. Roland Boyes (Houghton and Washington)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit voluntary euthanasia subject to certain conditions; and for connected purposes.I should like to begin with a short story. In a small room in a small house are two men in their 30s and a woman of 50. The woman is dying of lung cancer; one of the men is her doctor. The doctor explains that it will all be over in a few minutes. The woman sits up and asks for a window to be opened, but the movement towards the window is stopped by the doctor: it makes no difference, he says.Thirty seconds later, the woman sits up and utters her last words in her native Yorkshire: "I'm deeing, I'm deeing." A few seconds later, after an agonising death, she has been released from all pain and suffering. During the brief period that preceded her death, she was drugged and too ill to recognise anyone in the room.
That woman was my mother. I was with her at the end, and there was much that I would have liked to discuss with her. I wanted to explain many things; I wanted to talk about love, sorrow, guilt and the peace that she was about to enter. After her death I returned to the north-east from Yorkshire. For a whole year, it was as if a video in my brain was turned on every morning, showing the last moments of my mother's struggle for life. I would say to myself, "Please do not let it happen today", but it has happened again and again.
Preparing for this speech has been very painful. I knew that it would cause me pain before I began, but my belief in voluntary euthanasia encouraged me to break down the pain barrier. I do not want my family to suffer the same experience should I become terminally ill, with no hope of recovery. I would want to talk to them rationally about many things while my brain was still active. I would want to discuss a range of issues, some emotional, some practical. I would want to make the necessary arrangements for my death, and I would want us to be able to laugh together as we had always done as a family. I would want to assure them that for a long time I had had no fear of death, only of dying. I would want the privilege of being able to have my life ended when I made the choice, and to be with the people, my family, whom I love the most.
The essence of the Bill is about individual choice, about free choice; a contract entered into voluntarily. It is about the right to die with dignity. "Voluntary" is the critical word. Even if there were an Act, I do not know whether my mother would have acted any differently. I do not know how many members of my family would make a decision similar to that which I wish to make. They must be able to decide for themselves.
I also understand the views of those who disagree with me, both in the House and outside. I respect the arguments of those who see problems. But because euthanasia depends on the will of an individual, a decision freely taken, others should not deny that right to those who have chosen for themselves.
Opinion polls—I do not use them as a major prop in my argument—taken in a number of countries, show that about 75 per cent. of people support the right of individuals to decide for themselves when to die. Clearly, 44 that does not mean that 75 per cent. think that it should happen, but that 75 per cent. think that voluntary euthanasia should be available.
I appeared on a television programme about voluntary euthanasia a few months ago. As hon. Members would expect, I received a number of letters from viewers. Whenever controversial issues are debated in the Chamber or are the subject of television broadcasts, we usually receive a mix of views and often letters of outrage. On this occasion, I did not receive a single letter against my proposition. Again, I make no more of that, only record the fact.
It would be useful at this juncture to inform the House about the strict conditions that are necessary before an individual can have his or her life ended. The patient must be terminally ill without any possibility of recovery. The patient must be of sound mind and able to make the decision. The patient must be suffering mentally and physically to a degree which he or she finds unbearable and have a deep and sustained wish to die. The decision to assist a patient to end the misery of pain must be taken by a doctor, and the state of the person and the doctor's decision must be confirmed by a second doctor. The patient should have the right to consult a priest or anyone else of his choice. A doctor, and only a doctor, should administer the necessary drugs.
Those conditions are based on the guidelines set out in the Rotterdam criminal court which, if followed, would exempt the doctor concerned from prosecution. They must be strictly adhered to because there is some concern about the possibility of ending lives for wrong or criminal motives. It is essential that there is no coercion for wrongful reasons. It is clear that if any individual steps outside the guidelines, he or she will be subject to the due processes of the law.
In addition, as I mentioned earlier, a doctor must also have proper, adequate and necessary protection. Fortunately, cases that have come before the courts in the United Kingdom have ended with a not guilty verdict, such as occurred earlier this year.
I return to the voluntary theme. The patient's doctor, or any doctor, has the right to refuse just as he has the right to administer drugs. At a meeting I attended recently, the Hippocratic oath was mentioned. I do not want to make an issue of that, except to note that some doctors have clearly acted in the interests of their patients and outside their oath. However, I would defend a doctor's right simply to mention the Hippocratic oath as sufficient reason not to take part in voluntary euthanasia.
Yes, any parliamentary Bill must give doctors the necessary protection. After all, if a Bill similar to the one that I envisage were enacted, a major responsibility would lie with the doctors. If a doctor acts to end a patient's life, surely it is wrong that he is knowingly committing a crime.
My Bill seeks to permit voluntary euthanasia for those, and only those, who desire it as a result of a decision freely taken.
I have a file of letters here, which anyone is welcome to read. I want to give two or three people an opportunity to add their voice to mine this afternoon. Rather than mention names, I shall simply mention places. One person wrote to me from Devon saying:
Like you, I too watched my mother die and it was an experience which will live with me for ever. How I wish that I could have helped her die with dignity.From Horncastle, a person wrote saying: 45I have seen four of my relations die in distressing circumstances and I do not want it to happen to me.A letter from Stokesley says:I have long held the view that a good death should be part of a good life and that it should be lawful to arrange for this.A letter from London says:I know that I am getting near to the end of my life and that the fear of how I might be going to die just haunts me.From the Wirral, a letter says:Last year, I watched my sister lose a long battle with cancer. I do not need to describe the horrors of her final months to you, do I?The answer to that is clearly, no.In view of the overwhelming support outside the House —75 per cent. is the figure that is regularly quoted—I hope that the aspirations and hopes of the many will be reflected inside the House today.
§ Mr. Anthony Nelson (Chichester)No hon. Member will doubt the sincerity or compassion with which the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) sought leave to introduce the Bill today. We all respect and understand the close family experience which prompted him to do so. I suspect that few hon. Members do not have a personal experience or family background on which they can draw, as a result of which many will know the problems, difficulties and agonies of living alongside and caring for somebody who is deeply sick or terminally ill.
But it would literally be a grave error of judgment if leave were given to introduce the Bill. It would give quite the wrong impression outside the House. We are all sympathetic to and understanding about this vexed issue, but the House, uniquely, is the last bastion of people's lives and liberties, and there must be the most compelling reasons before we take those rights away.
There are four fundamental objections to the hon. Gentleman's proposal. First, it would materially undermine the sanctity of life. Secondly—for me this is the most important—it would open the way to serious abuses. Thirdly, it is far from clear that the medical profession would go along with the proposal put forward. Finally, it would undermine much of the splendid work of the hospice movement in Britain and the strides that have been made in the technology and techniques of caring for the dying.
There must remain a presumption that the taking of human life is illegal and that that is a basic protection; an inalienable right available to the individual. I do not say that the Bill would amount to a slippery slope towards compulsory euthanasia, but the principle would be breached, and substantially so.
Secondly, we must all accept that the very sick and the dying are particularly vulnerable people. They are open to suggestion. Many of those people, bless them, do not want to be a burden to others and, when they may be less able to make up their minds rationally, may feel that they should take their own lives with the help of others. There can be no guarantee that euthanasia would be voluntary. For those reasons, we should take seriously recent cases that have given grounds for concern about the way in which ostensibly near and dear members of a family have allowed elderly relatives to die in a state of penury and neglect.
A report by the British Medical Association published in 1988 concluded that 46
there is a distinction between an active intervention to terminate another person's life and a decision not to prolong life.That is an important distinction for the House to draw. The report concluded thatAn active intervention by anybody to terminate another person's life should remain illegal.That is what the doctors say, and we should think twice and thrice before negating their view. I would far rather have faith in the discretion and professional judgment of doctors than allow many people, at their weakest and most vulnerable moments, to be allowed—and I dare say encouraged in certain cases—to take their lives.The Criminal Law Revision Committee rejected such a proposition when it considered the possibility of introducing a new offence of mercy killing. The Law Commission also considered the matter, and while it felt that there could be cases in which the crime of murder could be downrated to manslaughter, it too believed that there was no case for introducing a new offence of mercy killing. Right hon. and hon. Members should be left in no doubt that many cases of euthanasia would amount to such, and there would be contested situations. The House of Lords Select Committee on murder and life imprisonment considered the matter last year and recommended that there be no change in current law.
The hospices movement will be familiar to many hon. and right hon. Members. The quality of life of people dying in this country has been enhanced considerably by hospices and by new techniques for treating and curing pain. I refer, for example, to the fact that the administration of a drug in a slightly larger dose at the onset of cumulative pain in a progressive, terminal disease can, strangely enough, result in no increase in the dosage being required later to maintain precisely the same threshold of pain relief. A person dying of cancer and in increasing pain can enjoy the same level of pain relief with a constant dose. That is clearly a simple but amazing discovery, made in recent years, that helps the terminally ill.
Much of the work done by hospices, the enthusiasm of their staff, the joy that they bring to families of the dying would be undermined if we were to breach existing principles. The early-day motion that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington tabled last January received the support of only 33 hon. Members. We shall see what happens today, but I do not believe that support for the hon. Gentleman's Bill will reflect the 1989 opinion poll to which he referred, in which fewer than 2,000 people were questioned. Often, one needs to examine the questions asked in such surveys, as well as the answers. The question put in that opinion poll was,
If suffering became intolerable, should the law be changed to allow adults to obtain medical help to an immediate, peaceful death?That is an appealing question, and no doubt many people did answer yes. However, if the same people had been asked whether they were in favour of mercy killing, I venture to suggest that they would have made a very different reply.The House would be making a grave error of judgment and a decision that the world outside would misinterpret if it were to allow the Bill to progress. Right hon. and hon. Members would be subjected to further lobbying on a massive scale, such as that which accompanied our recent 47 debates on similar issues. Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that at the end of my life, it will be the Good Lord, and none other, that shall deliver me.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
§ The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 101.
48| Division No.192] | [5.03 pm |
| AYES | |
| Allen, Graham | Mitchell, Sir David |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Mowlam, Marjorie |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Mullin, Chris |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | O'Neill, Martin |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Callaghan, Jim | Rost, Peter |
| Cartwright, John | Ruddock, Joan |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Soley, Clive |
| Darling, Alistair | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas | Turner, Dennis |
| Flannery, Martin | Walley, Joan |
| Flynn, Paul | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then) |
| Hayward, Robert | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd) | |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Irving, Sir Charles | Mr. Max Madden and |
| McCrindle, Robert | Mr. Brian Sedgemore. |
| Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| NOES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Brazier, Julian |
| Amos, Alan | Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) |
| Anderson, Donald | Buckley, George J. |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Budgen, Nicholas |
| Batiste, Spencer | Burt, Alistair |
| Beith, A. J. | Butler, Chris |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) |
| Benyon, W. | Canavan, Dennis |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Cash, William |
| Blunkett, David | Channon, Rt Hon Paul |
| Bowis, John | Conway, Derek |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes | Coombs, Simon (Swindon) |
| Corbett, Robin | Lofthouse, Geoffrey |
| Cryer, Bob | McAllion, John |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Dalyell, Tarn | McFall, John |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Macfarlane, Sir Neil |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) | Maclennan, Robert |
| Dixon, Don | McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Dunn, Bob | Martin, David (Portsmouth S) |
| Dunnachie, Jimmy | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Dykes, Hugh | Moate, Roger |
| Eadie, Alexander | Molyneaux, Rt Hon James |
| Eastham, Ken | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Evennett, David | Montgomery, Sir Fergus |
| Fearn, Ronald | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Forman, Nigel | Moss, Malcolm |
| Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S) | Mudd, David |
| Fry, Peter | Murphy, Paul |
| Gardiner, George | Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley |
| Gorst, John | Pawsey, James |
| Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) | Pike, Peter L. |
| Ground, Patrick | Price, Sir David |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Reid, Dr John |
| Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) | Rowlands, Ted |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney | Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) |
| Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) | Shersby, Michael |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Holt, Richard | Skinner, Dennis |
| Hood, Jimmy | Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) |
| Hordern, Sir Peter | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Howells, Geraint | Stern, Michael |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport E) | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Irvine, Michael | Summerson, Hugo |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Thorne, Neil |
| Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) | Viggers, Peter |
| Jones, Robert B (Herts W) | Walden, George |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Wallace, James |
| Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine | Waller, Gary |
| Kennedy, Charles | Watts, John |
| Kilfedder, James | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Knapman, Roger | Wray, Jimmy |
| Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) | |
| Latham, Michael | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Mr. Jim Lester and |
| Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) | Mr. Anthony Nelson. |
§ Question acccordingly negatived