Hanna says nothing has made her doubt that this can be done safely (Image: Hanna Geissler/Getty)
Having led the for almost three years, I believe with my whole heart and mind that we must change the law on assisted dying. Here’s why.
I began researching the topic in late 2021, when my editors were hungry for injustices in need of correction that would resonate with you, our readers. It soon became clear that this was an area where our law – and Parliament – was wildly out of step with public opinion.
When the House of Commons last voted on assisted dying in 2015, MPs rejected a Bill seeking to legalise it for terminally ill people by 330 votes to 118. But as polling guru Professor Sir John Curtice said this week, public support for a careful, limited law change has been strong for decades.
In February 2022 I took a train to Suffolk where I met who described dying quickly of a heart attack as “a best case scenario”.
As the afternoon sunlight streamed into the summer house in his garden, he explained with astonishing clarity and wisdom why people like him should have the right to request life-ending medication if their suffering becomes unbearable. It remains one of the most moving and meaningful interviews of my career.
David told me calmly: “I want to be able to choose the time which is right for me when I know that I can’t go on any more, when my suffering has got to the stage where I want relief. I want to be able to die with dignity and be able to say my farewells to my family.”
Like many in his position, the 75-year-old did not know if he would ultimately want an assisted death. But having the option would have eased the fear and agony that marred his final weeks with wife Sue and son Matt one year later.
And so, our campaign was launched with David’s powerful appeal for compassion. In the years since, I have spoken to dozens of people affected by the UK’s ban on assisted dying.
had cancer and endured 15 hours of hell after desperately ingesting a cocktail of drugs. had terminal lung disease and died alone on a train track. had a brain tumour and spent her final hours “crying and telling us she just wanted to die”.
As we told these stories, our empathetic readers rallied to show their support and post bags of mail poured into the Express offices. However, this is of course not an issue we should consider with our hearts alone.
Opponents often accuse advocates of failing to examine the practicalities of changing the law. I can confidently say that I have spent more time than almost anyone I know thinking about how assisted dying would be implemented in the UK.
I have read widely, deliberately seeking out the views of those who oppose our campaign. Nothing has made me doubt for even a moment that this can be done safely.
The “slippery slope” argument is one of the most common. Opponents point to Canada – where eligibility has widened over time to include people who are intolerably suffering, and may include mental health in 2027 – as a chilling example of what could lie ahead.
To be clear, that is not something I would ever want to see happen here and if I believed it was a possibility I would be campaigning against it. But Kim Leadbeater’s Bill proposes a very different system that draws on best practice from jurisdictions including Australia, New Zealand, and Oregon which have not broadened their laws.
The legal situation is complex but I am reassured by , including former director of public prosecutions Sir Max Hill KC, that attempts to widen the law through the courts would be unsuccessful.
As the found, nations which introduced assisted dying “on the basis of terminal illness have not changed the law to include eligibility on the basis of ‘unbearable suffering”’. And none have ever revoked their legislation.
After taking evidence over 14 months, the Committee also found no indications that palliative and end-of-life care had worsened as a result of introducing assisted dying. In some places, it had in fact been linked with improvements.
I travelled to Sydney last year and heard medics from across Australia speak about how voluntary assisted dying had been safely integrated into the spectrum of end-of-life options. And I met who said being found eligible “allowed me to mostly forget about dying”.
His doctor, British medic Dr Anna Negus, was clear: “We’re not expediting death. I don’t have a single patient who has wanted to die earlier, they just wanted to die at the end when there’s no coming back.”
For many who are opposed to or unsure about assisted dying, the possibility that people will be pressured into it is the most compelling concern. Multiple doctors I questioned about this found the idea that they would not spot coercion from a mile away almost laughable.
The assessment process is no box-ticking exercise – they build a close relationship and the length of time spent with patients is “almost unparalleled in medicine”, . It is a holistic process which encourages open conversations about the end of life where all options can be discussed.
Opponents have shouted the word “coercion” from the rooftops but there has never been a single documented case in jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal. If you wanted to pressure someone to die, I am not convinced that you would do it through a process which requires the sign-off of two experienced doctors and the High Court.
Almost two years into the Express campaign, a breakthrough came in December 2023 when Dame Esther Rantzen joined the fight. My colleague Giles Sheldrick and I worked closely with her to keep the issue at the top of the political agenda.
In January, I launched an and forced a three-hour Westminster Hall debate.
Then came a second breakthrough: the indomitable Ms Leadbeater was drawn first in the Private Member’s Bill ballot and. She and Dame Esther have fought tirelessly on behalf of all terminally ill people who want the gift of choice. I imagine it has taken a heavy toll on them both.
Some have claimed the Bill is being rushed, but the five hours allotted for today’s debate are only the first step in a lengthy process with further opportunities for amendments and votes on whether to proceed.
The Government has made it clear that the proposal will face the same scrutiny as any Government Bill. And with both the and Labour insisting that a matter of this magnitude must be decided by a PMB and conscience vote, denying campaigners this route would leave them facing a Catch-22.
The road to this moment has been long and paved by the bravery of those who shared harrowing personal experiences. It has been the greatest honour of my career so far to be involved with this campaign.
Whatever happens today, I am proud that the Express is standing firmly on the side of compassion, dignity and choice.