Caroline Voaden: The emotive end of life debate that shook parliament

The debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was the kind of debate an MP might only take part in once in a term of office – if at all. To experience it less than five months after being elected was no small thing. 

I can’t think of a single MP who wasn’t deeply moved by the implications of what we were being asked to do. In the week, we discussed it endlessly over tea, in meetings, and in the corridors, but as the Friday approached, these conversations became hushed as all of us turned inwards to reflect on the momentous decision before us. 

The Chamber is full every Wednesday for Prime Minister’s Questions. It is full too for the Budget, the King's Speech, or an important part of government legislation. To see it full for a Private Members’ Bill, though, is rare, and stepping into the Chamber on the Friday, the atmosphere felt altogether different. 

Partly because it was so quiet. I entered the Chamber just before 9.30am, and already, it was filling up fast. But it was unusually quiet. There was a weight in the air that is hard to describe. The enormity of what was about to happen was clear. 

We always start with prayers before the House sits, and to be honest, this has always felt a little anachronistic to me. Although I went to church in my youth, I don’t claim to have a faith now, though I do appreciate the familiarity of the Church of England can still be comforting, especially in difficult times. 

I’ve heard the arguments that only God has the right to take a life, and that this legislation is morally wrong. It’s not a view I agree with, and, given this, it did feel slightly strange to sit through prayers before the debate began on Friday. 

Kim Leadbeater, who brought this Bill, has been extraordinary throughout this process. She has led the debate with respect and dignity – and I know this is a view shared by my colleagues regardless of which way they voted. 

She did a phenomenal amount of work to ensure every MP received a pack full of information, and that we were able to attend briefings, meetings, and panel events to discover more about the issues raised by the Bill – from people on both sides of the debate. 

This work came through in the debate. We heard considered responses from every party, along with harrowing stories from Kim and many other MPs, including testimony from constituents who watched loved ones died in truly terrible circumstances, unable to get relief from unthinkably painful symptoms. 

These are stories I’ve also heard from constituents. Like many MPs, my inbox has been full of emails – hundreds of them, in fact, both for and against. I’ve heard from lawyers, doctors, nurses, campaigners, and terminally ill people. 

I’ve read and considered every email and letter I’ve received on this topic very carefully, and by the time Friday came, my inbox was weighted heavily in favour of assisted dying. 

But as in any decision where you do not have 100% backing from your constituents, I know my vote for assisted dying for terminally ill people will not please everyone.

I wanted you to know that I have not taken this decision lightly – the enormity of what we have decided weighs on me and all my colleagues. 

We will endeavour to do everything we can as it winds its way through the legislative process to make sure that we make it the best, safest Bill possible to protect the vulnerable and to offer a choice to those who are already facing death, to make it the best death possible. 

I believe that this debate also means that we are now, finally, having a much-needed discussion about the funding of palliative care in this country. It’s simply not right that hospices across the UK are kept afloat through charitable donations. If the Assisted Dying Bill means that palliative care finally gets the attention it has deserved for a long time, then that is definitely a good thing.