TODAY, please email your MP about the vote on 29 Nov:

STEP 1: Open up an email to your MP (remember – you may well have a new MP!)

Find your MP’s email address HERE

STEP 2: Write your message.

Use the bits you like from our template below. Please try to add your own thoughts – if you have personal experiences with ‘End of Life’ protocols or the issues in general, including those can be very powerful.

(Important: be sure to include your full postal address at the top of your email your MP knows you are a constituent.)

I am writing to you to express my deep concern about proposed legislation to introduce doctor-assisted suicide in the UK, a concern I hope you will share. As you are aware, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-25 which was presented to Parliament by the Labour MP Kim Leadbetter on the 16th of October, is to receive its second reading on 29 November.

I hope you will agree that a decision of such national import should not be rushed through Parliament, and that more time is needed to properly debate the issue both within Parliament and within the public sphere. How can MPs like yourself, in whom the public invest their trust, be able to vote with their conscience if they have only just set sight on the details of the Bill? With less than three weeks to go before the vote, how can this be sufficient time to digest its contents and reflect upon its implications?

Leaving aside the moral and ethical considerations MPs will need to reflect upon, there are very considerable practical implications that need to be examined and discussed before a rational and reasoned decision can be taken on the issue. Given that this is a Private Member’s Bill, it is unlikely sufficient time will be set aside to do this.

As it stands, there appears to be a poor understanding both among MPs and the public, as to what ‘assisted dying’ means, what it entails, how it differs from palliative care, and the relevance of the economic, political and cultural contexts in which it would be exercised. The proposed legislation poses very real risks and dangers in terms of its potential for abuse, and would fundamentally change the relationship between patient and physician, and ultimately the relationship between the individual and the State.

It does not require giant leaps of the imagination to envisage elderly and otherwise frail patients being coerced into considering the option of assisted suicide as an alternative to languishing in hospital beds for months on end awaiting home care packages or care home places, or to burdening themselves on their families when the long-awaited care fails to materialize.

Our palliative care facilities are also woefully underfunded, denying many patients access to the specialist care and treatment they need. The notion that assisted suicide could be safely introduced and administered within the current contexts described, and at a time of such economic decline and uncertainty, is without merit and should be rejected. However, the state of the NHS aside, there are other aspects and unintended consequences we need to examine and reflect upon before giving the greenlight to physician-assisted suicide. including:

1. The increasing protocolization of medicine, with decisions about whose life is worth saving increasingly being driven by age, clinical frailty scores and narrowly defined perceptions of quality of life, rather than on a considered assessment of the individual patient and their potential to recover. Assisted Suicide legislation would further expand the use of these protocols.

2. NHS rationing, which is already denying patients equal access to beneficial treatment on the basis of their age and frailties (real or perceived). Once assessed as having reached their ‘treatment ceiling’ these patients are then put on end-of-life pathways that hasten death. These practices are not widely known amongst the public. If they were, would there be as much support for Assisted Suicide as currently appears to be the case? Probably not.

3. Cultural factors – we are becoming increasingly ageist in our attitudes towards our elderly population, viewing our senior citizens as ‘economically inactive’ and a drain on what are deemed to be limited or finite resources. In the context of economic decline and a rapidly ageing population, utilitarian notions around optimal resource allocation are creeping into public discourse. There is, as I am sure you will agree, a very fine line to be drawn between utilitarian efficiency and eugenics, and I believe this is something we would be wise to consider when contemplating the introduction of assisted suicide.

4. Safeguards – it is impossible for any Government to draft assisted suicide legislation which provides protection against coercion and limits future expansion, as the example of Canada clearly attests. In every country where it has been introduced, initial safeguards have been eroded, with ever more categories of eligible suffering added to the list. Those who claim that only Parliament will have the power to determine changes in the scope and practice of assisted suicide, ignore the fact that change is not determined by laws alone but happens organically and incrementally within society. It is evident from the legacy of the Liverpool Care Pathway, whose practices continue despite it being officially banned in 2014, that culture has a habit of driving practice, irrespective of the law.

These are some of the questions MPs must interrogate in their deliberations. However, I believe this a question of such fundamental import to the future of our nation and to us as citizens, that I will be joining with others in calling for a national referendum on this issue.

The public must also be given the opportunity to reflect upon what is at stake: do we want to become a nation whose national health service segues from an institution that protects and sustains life to one that plays an active role in ending it; do we want to become a nation that views the elderly and frail as a burden, as being of less value to society purely on the basis of their age and diminished health, or do we want to aspire to being a society that affords equal respect to all human life, that values the contribution of all its citizens, and ensures equal access to our collective resources irrespective of age or infirmity?

What we the public must also pause to reflect upon is whether we want to hand the power to decide the time and manner of our passing to the State. In the interests of freedom and individual autonomy, I believe that would be in none of our interests.

Given all this, I hope you will support the call for a referendum, and also reflect on the concerns raised in this letter, and vote against the Bill on the 29 November.

STEP 3: Post on social media – tagging your MP in if you can

Use our template below – or write your own. Tag your local MP if you can, e.g. I just emailed my MP @jeremycorbyn about Assisted Dying Bill.

Just emailed my MP about Assisted Dying Bill

Huge concerns – no way such huge decision should be rushed through Parliament

We should have #referendum but meantime MPs should vote against 29 Nov

#together @togetherdec

Please note – the tag above works for Twitter but may need adjusting for other social media platforms.

Thank you – please stay tuned: we’ll have further actions on this important issue.

This campaign (Assisted Dying Bill: Contact your MP) was created and published by #together and is republished here under “Fair Use”