MOST of Northern Ireland’s MPs who take their seat will be voting against the assisted dying bill on Friday.
Among them is the DUP’s Upper Bann representative Carla Lockhart, who said that despite supporters of the plans believing they were offering compassion it was “wrong to press people towards ending their lives” without properly addressing issues in palliative care.
Her four Westminster DUP colleagues are voting against it as well as the TUV leader Jim Allister, the UUP’s Robin Swann, the independent North Down MP Alex Easton and also the Alliance’s Sorcha Eastwood.
The SDLP’s Foyle MP Colum Eastwood announced his support for the legislation this week, arguing that it was wrong to permit the suffering of terminally ill patients just to assuage his own conscience.
His party leader, Claire Hanna, confirmed on Thursday that she would be abstaining from the vote.
“I’m not going to toss a coin over something like this,” she told the BBC.
She added that as the legislation applied to England, it felt like the right time to “pause”.
Sinn Féin’s seven MPs abstain from Westminster, but the party has previously stated it supports assisted dying in principle for certain cases and with strict safeguards in place.
Speaking ahead of the debate, Ms Lockhart said it was “a reality that in every case where assisted suicide has been introduced elsewhere, its scope has widened beyond the often, narrow focus of its initial introduction.”
She added it would be those with the fewest resources that would likely feel the most pressure “to remove the ‘burden’ they may feel they have become.”
The bill is proposing that assisted dying is strictly limited to those with a terminal illness and a six-month life expectancy, and requiring the approval of two doctors and a High Court judge.
Pressuring people into the ending their life would also be punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
Ms Lockhart said the safeguards would put a significant burden on the legal system, and lacked detail on how it would prevent coercion “which will inevitably form part of the system.”
If the legislation is passed on Friday, she claimed it would be the start of a long process where many more people would end their life instead of receiving proper end of life care.
Opinion polls in the UK have suggested that most people support the bill to some extent, but it remains uncertain how it will proceed as most MPs have been given a free vote on the issue from their parties.
With hours of debate and over 100 MPs expected to speak during the debate on Friday.
If the bill passes the latest stage, known as the second reading, supporters say it will allow for more detailed scrutiny next year – while those against claim the process has been rushed as it was brought forward by a backbencher, Labour’s Kim Leadbeater, rather than the government.
Ms Leadbeater has described the bill as the “most robust” in the world, and rejected claims it is a slippery slope to death on demand.
Other concerns raised included that the bill would result in funds being diverted away from frontline care, as only a third of hospice providers in the UK are state funded – with the rest supported by charities.
The DUP’s Strangford MP, Jim Shannon, said this week he was concerned that Friday’s vote could lead to “a conflict between church-owned hospices and this House.”
In turn, the Home Office minister Seema Malhotra said any decisions on assisted dying should be made on a “secular basis,” with evidence and arguing the case for law a guiding principle.
The head of the Catholic Church in Ireland, Archbishop Eamon Martin, said the bill was a potential step towards permitting “assisted suicide” in Northern Ireland.
“As a society we are defined by the extent to which we care for our most vulnerable persons including those suffering from disabilities, terminal illness or otherwise nearing the end of life,” he said.
“While this is a Gospel imperative, it is noteworthy that medical and healthcare professionals are also gravely concerned at an evolving political ideology which would interfere with their calling to ‘do no harm’ and which would legally erode the right to life at all stages.”