I’ll fight changes to suicide law, says Telford MP Mark Pritchard
Shropshire MP Mark Pritchard has warned that any attempt to change the law on assisted suicide would be ‘rigorously fought by MPs from across the House’.
The Conservative MP’s comments come after new health ministers Anna Soubry and Norman Lamb suggested there was a case for reassessing legislation concerning assisted suicide.
The British Medical Association (BMA) said it opposed any change to the law.
Telford MP Mr Pritchard said: “I agree with the British Medical Association and all the leading disability charities who both reject assisted dying legislation.
“For years the Liberal Democrats have wanted to bring forward legislation on euthanasia.
“This is a slippery slope and would put many vulnerable and elderly people under huge pressure should they become seriously ill.
“Health ministers should be seeking to improve healthcare for all – not end lives.”
Tory Anna Soubry reopened the right-to-die debate in an outspoken interview just days after being appointed a junior minister in the Department of Health in David Cameron’s reshuffle.
Ms Soubry said there needed to be more ‘honesty’ about the consequences.
“I think it’s ridiculous and appalling that people have to go abroad to end their life instead of being able to end their life at home,” she said.
And her Liberal Democrat colleague Mr Lamb, who was shifted to the health brief at the same time, said he believed there was ‘a strong case’ for the present law to be reconsidered.
However, ministers also faced a call to go further still from the widow of locked-in syndrome sufferer Tony Nicklinson who died a week after he lost his bid to end his life with a doctor’s help.
Ms Soubry indicated that she would be opposed to any change that resulted in doctors being told they could kill someone.
Comments for: "I’ll fight changes to suicide law, says Telford MP Mark Pritchard"
Bill
Whilst I would never, ever, deny Mr Pritchard the right to his opinions, for him to characterise the debate on assisted suicide as a 'battle royal' was wholly inappropriate and unfortunate.
People die in battles.
Nor is this a 'Liberal Democrat policy'. They have suggested, no more, that the issue needs reasoned and unemotional debate. Ms Soubry is quite right - UK citizens having to travel to Dignitas to die at their own behest raises issues that should rightly be considered openly .
It is an issue which fortunately affects only a relatively small number of people, but affects them in a fundamental way that Mr Pritchard appears too intellectually deficient to try and comprehend.
What is needed is an informed debate which respects all sides of the argument, not political grandstanding worthy only of disgust that the terrible personal issues facing families and individuals are to become sort of ideological battleground.
Whatever the outcome, this debate deserves cool heads and calm reasoning, not Pritchard's outbursts of political posturing.
Wile Coyote
Congratulations on being an out dated dinosaur.
Neil Farrell
Dear Mark Pritchard,
may I remind you that you were sent to parliament to represent your constituency ..... not yourself. You therefore should canvas your constituents views before threatening to vote against any amendments to the present outdated cruel law.
Bill
Well said.
As somebody with a background in marketing and communications Pritchard is proving absolutely incompetent at communicating with his electorate or marketing himself to them for re-election. The local Conservatives shoud be 'considering their position' pretty carefully if they want to keep the seat.
But then Pritchard is from Herefordshire - goes at everything like a bull at a gate.....
Doubter
Pritchard has done little for the people of north Telford was a silent voice over the rows with the Shrewsbury Mp and the 2 hospitals whilst the South Telford MP made his voice clear, he is in it for himself.
The way the Tories are going it will be the un-assited suicides that goes up
R Suppards
How I agree with Neil Farrell. The PRIMARY and OVER-RIDING duty of any MP is to represent the view of his constituents, not to toe the Party line. Has Mr Pritchard consulted his constituents on this issue? All I can say is, he hasn't asked me, or made any other attempt to canvass local opinion. I disagree with his view on this matter. Take note.
H Sambrook
It's a shame Mark Telford isn't an MP in my local town - he'd have just guaranteed my vote, for someone else. How dare he feel godlike empowerment over other people's lives - Who named him the ultimate authority over others. If someone decides they want to to end their life, that's their decision - not his. Just like all Politicians it's the financial implications of such a law. This man appals me and I hope he one day suffers an indignity. Then again he's a politician - they all suffer one, eventually.
wiliam
Well spoken indeed , but it also needs to be said that any changes would require doctors and medical staff to become killers however the act is dressed up.
Robert
Thanks for letting your electorate in advance.
Inhumaity is the watchword of the Tories, what a degredation from a tradition of upright and decent Members
It might just be your life one day
The arrogance of a nobody from Shropshire
Another thicknecked bully
Richard Bonella
Is Mr Lamb's attitude based on a systematic canvas of the views of the constituents he represents, or on his own beliefs? Given the strength of feeling on both sides of this debate, we are, I suggest, entitled to know this.
Ladyd1
To say I am on the fence is an understatement. I had friend who became very seriously disabled at 40 odd after an accident. After a few yrs in hospital he 'came home' to a purpose built home ( luckily enough for him) and had round the clock care. He was the same person inside but put up a front for his mates. When his friends asked he responded that he " wants to die". We all helped, visited, took him to the pub, footy matches etc but to no avail. He couldn't live in the " shell" and wanted to go. The friends accepted this and grieved with him. Other people however, wanted to push the outside world on him and did not agree with his words.
Our friend has now sadly passed away ( due to illness) a coup,e of years ago. And said to us that he agrees with assisted suicide. As much as we couldn't do it then, if he had written that in his ' last days' then we would have all respected that decision.
On the other side of the fence. I work as a carer and have seen how some family members are selfish and ignorant of the fact. And a lot worse than u may see.
In my opinion it's all about the money and greedy people.
I am spilt, sorry. But if someone is of sound mind and has legal guarantors then I don't see the pproblem. I would want to if it was me. And don't forget, we all get the right to put a dog/ cat/ rabbit down. And he right to turn off a life support system and have abortion. Things to think about Mr Pritchard!
Katherine de Gama
There is a powerful ethical argument in favour of repealing the Suicide Act 1961 if new legislation can be drafted in such a way that it protects those who, necessarily and inevitably, are vulnerable. That's easier said than done. However, it is tragic that some people have the unhappy choice of ending theeir lives before they would want to because their loved ones or doctors would risk prosecution if they helped them achieve a gentle death further down the line.
CMmd
I wonder if Mr Pritchard would hold a different view if he were unlucky enough to suffer the 'Locked In Syndrome.'
I realise that there are some very seriously disabled persons that are against Assisted Suicide but in the main it is the abled bodied busy bodies who are against it.
This tired old excuse of 'people will be under pressure to agree to end their lives' is nonsense & not dealing with the issue.
So Mr Pritchard are you going to suggest some other course of action for the poor souls whose every waking moment is a nightmare of torment. I doubt it.
pete
It would appear that there are may commentators who have no actual understanding of the issue just blind misunderstanding of morality and the law.
Suicide is not a crime,(Suicide Act 1961 ,section 1) if a person wishes to commit suicide they may.
If someone wishes to assist the death of a person they are committing a criminal offence.(Suicide Act 1961, section 2 Criminal Liability for complicity in another's suicide) Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law, (Human Rights Act, Article 2).
The law does not consider the altruistic compassionate dignity for death and nor should it its moral duty is rightly to protect life.
The Judiciary has pointedly refused to interpret the right to death, even in the case of the conjoined twins the right to life was held as the ratio decendi.
Any decision for assisting a suicide is for parliament the legislature to decide.
If one considers the issue of abortion do you consider that it properly implemented or abused as a contraception of last resort?
In assisting a suicide how would you protect a victim of duress say a vulnerable aged parent who see's their death as a means of " tax avoidance so their children are not forced to sell the a family home to cover care costs?
Assisting a suicide is killing someone.
Of the small number of cases on this issue too much time has been wasted on what would be of issue for less than 000.1 % of the population. If people competently wish to visit dignitas they may the UK should make no more provision than it already does.