Birmingham MPs have their say on assisted dying - how will they vote?

Birmingham MPs will have their say on assisted dying in the House of Commons tomorrow (Friday). It is the first time the issue of 'choice at the end of life' has come before the Commons in nearly a decade.

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater proposed the Private Members Bill in mid-October, which would legalise assisted death under certain conditions for terminally ill adults in England and Wales. The bill would apply to those who are over 18 years old, have mental capacity, and have six months left to live, with the consent of two medical professionals.

The bill has generated strong opinions from both sides of the assisted dying movement, while even some of those in favour have voiced concerns over the lack of safeguarding in the bill. A group of MPs have also pushed an amendment forward which might stop the vote going ahead.

We asked Birmingham's ten MPs for their views and how they intended to vote. This is what they had to say.

Liam Byrne, Birmingham Hodge Hill, Labour: UNDECIDED

Mr Byrne's response was short and sweet. "Call me old fashioned, but I plan to listen to the debate!"

Al Carns, Birmingham Selly Oak, Labour: FOR

The new MP for Selly Oak says after careful consideration he is 'marginally' for the bill.

He has shared the response he sent to constituents: "My personal belief is that everyone has the right to choose how to end their life. Providing appropriate safeguards are in place, I will support a change in the law to enable terminally ill adults to receive, at their request, medically supervised assistance to end their own lives.

"However, assisted dying should not be an alternative to high-quality palliative and end of life care. People deserve dignity in dying, and each person nearing the end of their life should feel reassured and safe in the knowledge they will receive the very best care. Successive governments have taken the view that any change in the law should be a matter of conscience for MPs, instead of a whipped vote. The new Government has confirmed that MPs will have a free vote on this issue as the Assisted Dying Bill passes through Parliament. As your elected representative in Parliament, I will monitor developments in this area closely and bear in mind the points you have raised."

Preet Kaur Gill, Birmingham Edgbaston, Labour: AGAINST

The MP held a meeting in her constituency to hear the views of residents, and thanked them for their 'deeply ethical and emotional' contributions. But she says as a practising Sikh that her "faith is rooted in the principle of the sanctity of life, which underscores my conviction that every moment of life has inherent value, regardless of circumstance or suffering. I fully recognise and sympathise with the unimaginable pain and hardship that some people endure due to terminal illnesses, I believe that assisting in ending a life conflict with my core values."

She says she has raised concerns over the bill creating an environment where individuals, especially those who feel like a burden to their families or caregivers, may feel subtle or overt pressure to choose the assisted dying pathways. She also shares the concerns of healthcare professionals about the potential pressure the bill could place on vulnerable individuals, citing examples of cases in places where assisted dying has been legalised where individuals with chronic conditions or disabilities feel an unspoken pressure to choose to die; and healthcare workers’ concerns about the ethical and professional conflicts the bill could create.

Paulette Hamilton, Birmingham Erdington, Labour: AGAINST

The MP, a former nurse and a practising Christian, says she has dedicated years of her life to caring for others, 'firmly believing in the value of every life." She said she is deeply concerned at the change in the law proposed and believes assisted dying "should not become an alternative to high quality palliative care and end of life care. People deserve dignity in dying and should feel reassured and safe...in their final days."

She said she is working closely with hospice organisations to lobby to better value, fund and support the hospice movement.

Shabana Mahmood, Birmingham Ladywood, Labour: AGAINST

The views of the Justice Secretary on assisted dying have been clear for years - she voted against it when it was last raised in 2015 - but the strong language used in her response to a constituent on the matter earlier this month have raised eyebrows and prompted a backlash.

She said she would be voting against the Bill last month, telling the Times: "As a Muslim, I have an unshakeable belief in the sanctity and the value of human life. I don’t think that death is a service that the state should be offering.”

To her constituents, she went further last week, writing: “Sadly, recent scandals – such as Hillsborough, infected blood and the Post Office Horizon – have reminded us that the State and those acting on its behalf are not always benign. I have always held the view that, for this reason, the state should serve a clear role. It should protect and preserve life, not take it away. The state should never offer death as a service.”

She continued: “It cannot be overstated what a profound shift in our culture assisted suicide will herald. In my view, the greatest risk of all is the pressure the elderly, vulnerable, sick or disabled may place upon themselves. Faced with expensive or insufficient care, some may feel they have become too great a burden to their family, friends and society at large. In doing so, they would not be choosing death because that is what they want for themselves but because they think that others might want it for them.”

She added: “We must never accept the wrongful deaths of some in exchange for the desired deaths of others. That line, once crossed, will be crossed for ever." Her views have prompted a backlash.

Andrew Mitchell, Sutton Coldfield, Conservatives: FOR

In his response, Mr Mitchell wrote to us: "When I entered the House of Commons in 1987, I was adamantly opposed to all forms of assisted dying. But over the years (perhaps it is part of the ageing process) I have completely changed my mind. Let me explain why.

"It is first and foremost because of my experience as a constituency MP. I have sat in my office in the Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield and heard stories from so many of my constituents. Often with tears pouring down their faces, they have given me deeply intimate details of the last days of someone they loved but who died a miserable and sometimes very painful death.

"By the end of these meetings, often with tears coursing down my own face, I was invariably left with two overwhelming feelings: the first is that we would not let an animal we loved be treated in such a way and, second, I do not myself wish to go through the sort of end of life experience that my constituents have so often eloquently described."

"And just as I would not want it for myself, I no longer want members of my family or those I represent in Parliament to have to navigate so awful an end. My public position is that I will be voting in favor of Kim Leadbeater MP’s Choice at the End of Life Bill."

Jess Phillips, Birmingham Yardley, Labour: FOR

Jess told us: "I will vote for assisted dying." In response to additional questions about whether her view was informed by any religious faith, and whether her position on assisted dying had any link to her view on abortion (regarding the sanctity of life issue), she said: "I have no religious faith, am an abortion rights campaigner and was the first MP to admit to having had an abortion."

We received no response to our inquiries from Tahir Ali, MP for Birmingham Hall Green, or from Ayoub Khan, Independent MP for Birmingham Perry Barr.

Laurence Turner, Birmingham Northfield, Labour: AGAINST

Read his letter in full here.

Laurence told us: "I am voting against and my letter to constituents explains why. I affirmed as a new MP and my position is not motivated by religious belief. In terms of reproductive rights, I support the freedom of choice."

In his letter he describes the issue as 'complex and emotive', with strongly held ethical and moral views on both sides of the debate. He writes: " I have thought hard about my own position, and I will vote against the proposal when it is debated.

"We must judge any system by how it treats the most vulnerable. I have some background in disability rights campaigning, and on the basis of what I have seen, and the testimony of others, I do not believe that either the NHS or the court system are currently in a position to fulfil that duty of care in all cases.

"I understand and I am sympathetic to the desire for a right for a person to end their life under controlled and humane circumstances of their own choosing. But the best-designed system of checks and balances will still fail if they are underpinned by attitudes are still outdated, and stigmatising.

"I do not mean, in any way, to denigrate the compassion and professionalism of the people who work in the health and court services – quite the opposite. But the hard fact is that those attitudes are still too common. I have seen it in practice. I believe that – in individual cases – inappropriate pressure would be applied to some people to end their lives. I cannot in good conscience vote in favour after being exposed to (some of) the reality of what the treatment of disabled people within our health and court systems can look like." He adds: "I do respect the position of those who hold a different point of view. It is a matter of individual conscience, and I cannot, personally, vote in favour."