Following the Second Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, Bradley said:
“During the last few weeks, I have received many personal and heartfelt stories from those who support assisted dying and I have met with campaigners on both sides of this debate as well as Kim Leadbeater MP, who has sponsored the Private Members’ Bill.
“The noble intent of this Bill is clear – to alleviate suffering by those who feel powerless.
“I have followed this debate closely and since the Bill has been published, I have heightened concerns around clause 5(3) of the Bill which does not define the training, qualifications or experience of the “coordinating doctor” who is an undefined “medical practitioner”.
“Clause 23 of the Bill allows for doctors who are ethically opposed to assisted dying to conscientiously object and not provide their support to those seeking an assisted death. However, the Bill does not allow for a conscientious objection by a judge who is expected to sign off on the process.
“This presents an unfair contradiction which would see judges compelled to engage with assisted dying cases whereas doctors could be ethically exempt.
“Furthermore, a patient who unduly feels a burden, either on their family or society, would be able to independently end their life without their wishes being known until after the event. The emotional trauma to families could be catastrophic.
“I have consistently said that Parliament must progress any Bill carefully, without rushing, allowing ample time for MPs, and society, to debate the issue and ensure that any new Act of Parliament is as robust and legislatively tight as possible.
“By comparison, the fox hunting ban received over 700 hours of Parliamentary scrutiny before becoming law.
“Even at Second Reading, the most significant shift in the relationship between the individual and the state deserves greater Parliamentary scrutiny prior to Parliament voting on the principle of the Bill.
“The Government has failed to commit to allowing substantive time on the floor of the House of Commons and a short Parliamentary debate of five hours is insufficient time for up to 650 Members of Parliament to comprehensively debate and do justice to the implications of what would be our most profound social change in decades.
“Parliament owes it to every member of our society to ensure that legislation of this intent is robust and without ambiguity.
“It is critical that we continue to invest in end-of-life palliative care to ensure that patients with terminal illnesses receive the very best healthcare to mitigate their suffering and prolong their quality of life to the maximum extent possible. I welcome calls for a Palliative Care Commission.
“Ignoring the humanity that sits behind this Bill is impossible. However, as a Member of Parliament I have a duty to ensure that legislation is as robust as possible and drafted to avoid unintended consequences, even when they arise from a place of good intention.
“I am not sufficiently content that this Bill meets those criteria and cannot with good conscience support it.
“I want every constituent to know that regardless of whether I have voted in line with your personal wishes or not, my decision has come after many hours of deliberation, over many weeks, including having read every single letter or email that has been sent to me.”
