MPs in Westminster are expected to vote on assisted dying within weeks (Image: Tim Merry)
The time for careful reform to our assisted dying laws has come. In the coming months, Parliament will be seized of the issue, with the Prime Minister promising to ensure appropriate time for debate and a free vote.
We must grasp the opportunity to shape the law to end the current legislative and regulatory uncertainty, offer choice to individuals at the end of their life and allow those who genuinely choose it to escape agony and pain in their final days.
This is not an issue of party politics. We are Parliamentarians from across political divides who regularly disagree on policy and principle – and we write in a personal capacity, and not on behalf of our respective parties.
But this issue rises above the day-to-day disputes – we all agree that as a country we cannot turn our head when so many are forced to die without dignity.
This issue is ultimately about choice. There is cross party support for the proposed reforms which would allow those with capacity with six months or less to live to make a choice about how they die.
We believe change is necessary. New legislation will require robust debate about the scope of new laws and the right protections to avoid abuse. The need for palliative care improvements alongside this change remains vital.
But the current status quo is not working – and those who oppose change must face up to these failings.
Firstly, thousands of people die in unnecessary pain each year despite end-of-life care. This is avoidable. This causes extreme distress for the individual, and their families.
Secondly, the law is a mess. Legislation makes it a criminal offence to assist a loved one when dying, but prosecutors are understandably advised to show leniency and care when considering whether to bring a prosecution.
As a former Director of Public Prosecutions Max Hill KC has recently said, this means there are lengthy investigations for grieving families, who do not know where they stand under the law at the moment.
He has, rightly, expressed that vulnerable people are not well served by the status quo. Providing clarity in this area is therefore a critical purpose of assisted dying proposals.
Thirdly, the current system is unfair. The wealthy have at least some choice. Like the brilliant campaigner Esther Rantzen, they are able to pay to organise for their death in advance and travel to a different jurisdiction.
Others are less fortunate and are forced to suffer at home. Those able to travel abroad, and their families, have to deal with the administrative and logistical hurdles as a result, causing further unnecessary distress.
Across the world, over 300 million people now reside in jurisdictions whereby they have a choice around how they die. But the tensions caused by different legal approaches will soon arrive closer to home.
Within our union, the Scottish parliament is already developing reforms in this area, as are the parliaments of Jersey and the Isle of Man.
We understand, and respect, those who disagree with us. The issue raises profound moral questions. But it has been a decade since MPs have last debated an assisted dying bill. In that time, public support for change has strengthened.
It is our duty as elected representatives to listen to and act on the public mood. In the meantime, the law continues to let down both those suffering and their families.
Millions would feel let down if we failed to modernise the law when given this opportunity. We will soon have the chance to do the right thing and enact a reform that has rare support across the political spectrum, within our Parliament and across the country. We must not waste it.