Health Secretary Wes Streeting to vote against assisted dying amid coercion fear
The Cabinet minister had previously described himself as ‘uncharacteristically undecided’ on the issue.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting is to vote against an assisted dying Bill amid fears around coercion and people feeling a “duty to die”.
The Cabinet minister had previously said he was “uncharacteristically undecided” on the issue.
MPs will debate Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on November 29 and an initial vote is expected that day.
Mr Streeting’s decision, first reported by The Times newspaper, is understood to have been made amid concerns around people feeling pressured to end their lives.
The news follows Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s previous declaration to The Times that she will vote against the Bill, saying: “As a Muslim, I have an unshakeable belief in the sanctity and value of human life.”
Earlier this month, Cabinet Secretary Simon Case wrote to ministers to say that, while they “need not resile from previously stated views when directly asked about them, they should exercise discretion and should not take part in the public debate”.
Mr Streeting is reported to have given his view when asked about assisted dying at a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party this week.
Some Labour MPs who are in favour of a change in the law are understood to have since expressed surprise that Mr Streeting has made his view known in light of Mr Case’s letter to ministers.
The Health Secretary had spoken recently about his concern that palliative care is not good enough “to give people a real choice”.
In comments reported by The Sun at the weekend, he said: “The challenge is, I do not think palliative care, end-of-life care, in this country is good enough to give people a real choice.
“I worry about coercion and the risk that the right to die feels like a duty to die on the part of, particularly, older people.”
In July, Mr Streeting said he was “uncharacteristically undecided” on the issue, adding that it would be both an ethical and practical debate, considering whether it is right in principle and can work in practice.
At that stage he said that, while it was a debate he would “wrestle with”, it is also “a debate whose time has come”.
He has also spoken of concerns around a “slippery slope” – something about which the Archbishop of Canterbury has also warned.
Justin Welby met Ms Leadbeater on Monday for what was said to have been a “good and productive” meeting, but no details of the discussions were disclosed.
Ms Leadbeater has previously rejected the slippery slope argument, saying her legislation will have “very clear criteria, safeguards and protections”.
The precise detail of the proposed legislation – setting out the circumstances which could lead someone to be eligible – is not expected to be published until closer to the November 29 debate.
But Ms Leadbeater has indicated she would like to see a “timeframe” on the diagnosis of patients, and when it was put to her that the Bill could require two medical professionals and a judge to agree, she said there must be both medical and judicial safeguarding.
She has also said there is “absolutely no question of disabled people or those with mental illness who are not terminally ill being pressured to end their lives” and argued that any new law will not come into effect as an alternative to good palliative care.
