Assisted dying bill would have ignored my husband

It takes something unusual to get an almost full attendance in the House of Commons on a Friday and that unusual, potentially epochmaking event was the decisive third reading of Kim Leadbeater’s bill to legalise assisted dying, or as formally entitled, the Terminally Il] Adults End of Life) Bill.

- MARY DEJEVSKY

I have a particular, and very personal, perspective on this. I believe this bill, in its original form, and still less as amended, falls very far short of legalising assisted dying for very many of those who might have been pinning their hopes on it.

So limited is its scope, in fact, that it will positively exclude many of those such as my late husband - who have been the most determined in arguing for a right to choice at the end of life.

The only people empowered to take advantage of the new law will be those judged by doctors to have less than six months to live. That will automatically rule out many, perhaps most, of those with chronic, progressive conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease, or - in my husband's case Parkinson's disease - some of the very people who have been campaigning most passionately for legalised assisted dying.

How many doctors will commit to pronouncing that someone with say, Parkinson's - has only six months of life left, knowing that this will be a licence for an assisted death? Almost none, I would submit.

The pace of such progressive diseases can be unpredictable. Some, such as Parkinson's, may fluctuate, while always on a downward trajectory. Those with terminal cancer may be among the very few able to take advantage of the law change. Even then, the time taken up by panels and paperwork, as required by the bill, could take up an undue portion of the six months the applicant is deemed to have left.