South Yorkshire MPs explain their vote on assisted dying bill

The bill passed its second reading in the House of Commons, but MPs’ votes reflected a wide range of opinions on the emotive issue.

MPs from Barnsley and Rotherham tell the local democracy reporting service why they voted in favour or against the bill.

Sarah Champion: Supporting the right to choose

Sarah Champion, MP for Rotherham, was among those who voted in favour of the bill. She spoke about the importance of dignity in dying, stressing that the bill would provide stringent safeguards to protect vulnerable people.

“This is a deeply sensitive topic, and one on which I know there are very strong feelings on both sides of the debate,” Ms Champion said.

Ms Champion explained that her personal belief is that everyone should have the right to choose how they die, provided there are strict protections in place. “Safeguards are of course vital, and the Bill proposed to Parliament would, should it be passed, see Britain implement a right to die with some of the most stringent protections in the world,” she added.

Champion also emphasized the importance of palliative care, stating that patients must never feel that death is the only option due to a lack of proper 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.”

Dan Jarvis: Listening to constituents

Dan Jarvis, MP for Barnsley Central, also voted in favour of the bill after careful consideration. He says that took into account the views of constituents who contacted him, many of whom had strong personal opinions on the matter.

“I was guided by my belief that the law shouldn’t stand in the way of people with terminal illnesses deciding how and when their lives end, provided there is informed consent and a rigorous process to protect vulnerable people,” he said.

“This bill will rightly face much scrutiny as it makes its way through Parliament, and I very much hope that the respectful nature of the debate surrounding it will continue.”

Stephanie Peacock: A cautious vote against

On the other hand, Stephanie Peacock, MP for Barnsley East, voted against the bill, citing concerns about the potential consequences for the healthcare system and society. While she expressed no moral objection to giving terminally ill adults more autonomy, Peacock had reservations about the bill’s potential impact.

“After careful consideration, I chose to vote against the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill,” Ms Peacock explained. “I hold no moral objection to the principle of giving mentally competent terminally ill adults more autonomy over when to end their suffering, however, at this stage, I had too many reservations to vote with confidence for the Bill.”

Ms Peacock’s main concern was the pressure placed on the NHS and social care systems. “I am concerned that the Bill may result in a shift towards a feeling that those in need of end-of-life care are a burden on both their families and wider society, particularly in the context of our NHS, social care, and judicial systems being under immense pressure.”

She also acknowledged the emotional stories shared by her constituents, many of whom had firsthand experience with terminal illnesses. “I have listened closely to those of you who have written to me with personal stories of the suffering experienced by your loved ones and want to thank you for sharing this with me,” Peacock said.

Jake Richards: Too many people forced to endure pain

Jake Richards, MP for Rother Valley, said he voted for the bill as too many people are forced to die in unnecessary pain and indignity.

He says that the inconsistency in the law, which makes assisted dying illegal, but allows individuals to travel to countries like Switzerland, where assisted dying is legal, to access services, created disparity – allowing those with financial means to make choices about their death, while others are left in limbo.

Mr Richards added: “Reform to this legal system would offer clarity, fairness, and a humane option for those suffering from terminal illness who wish to make decisions about their own end-of-life care.

“Prior to Friday’s vote, I spoke with hundreds of constituents about the issue and held two public meetings. Many people I spoke with held religious views that mean they could never support assisted dying – and I fully respect their right to such a view.

“In my view, there are many conditions for which the best palliative care does not assist. I have spoken to the wife of a man who choked to death, slowly, over the course of five days due to a complicated condition despite receiving brilliant palliative care.

“A father, who lives in Rotherham, approached me to tell me why he supported change after his daughter suffered an agonising death a decade ago. This was tragedy for his daughter, but the trauma has left him and his family struggling to this day.

“If we can safely prevent these events occurring, then I believe we have a moral imperative to do so.”