End of Life Bill: Luke Murphy MP responds to Parliament vote

On Friday, November 29, MPs in the House of Commons voted in favour of passing the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill by 330 votes for, to 275 votes against.

One of those who voted in favour of the bill was Basingstoke's Labour MP, Mr Murphy, who released a statement afterwards detailing why he did so, stating that the current law was "not fit for purpose."

He said: "I did so in the knowledge that this issue carries profound moral, ethical, and, for many, religious implications, on both sides of the debate. At its heart, this debate is about how we balance the right to autonomy over our own lives and bodies with the potential impact on others and wider society.

READ MORE: This is why police helicopters were spotted over Basingstoke last night

MP for Basingstoke, Luke Murphy (Image: UK Parliament)

"It represents a significant step toward giving terminally ill people the right to choose while ensuring stringent safeguards to protect against abuse. Since the bill was introduced, I have engaged extensively with medical professionals, disability groups, lawyers, religious leaders, colleagues, and constituents, including hosting a public meeting last night of 80 people in our town sharing their views for and against the bill. I have also read all of the many emails and letters that I have received from constituents on the issue.

"I believe that the current law is cruel and not fit for purpose. Those opposed to this change in the law argue that people could be coerced into ending their lives either by friends, family, medical professionals, or their internal feelings of being a burden on their families or society as a whole.

"It is a legitimate and significant concern, and one of the most powerful arguments against a change. However, the current law doesn’t just coerce people into a death they don’t want for themselves – it compels them, brutally, to accept a death they find, in the words of constituents that have written to me, 'intolerably painful, cruel, and undignified.'

"This reform does not detract from the urgent need to improve palliative and end-of-life care in this country."

He pledged to work towards creating a better palliative and end-of-life care system "that our country deserves."

Ensuring that the bill is "measured and narrow," he stated that it applies only to "those with a terminal illness, with six months to live, and a whole series of checks and safeguards."

In response to concerns that a private member's bill was used to create such a "consequential decision," he said: "In my short time in parliament, the bill has been the subject of a great deal of thorough and compassionate debate, and all of the colleagues I have spoken to from across the house in all parties have given it the time and serious consideration that we all know it deserves."

He added that the bill is still in the "early stages of its legislative process" and will be followed by a committee to scrutinise the bill before it moves to the House of Lords.

"The last time that parliament took a decision of equivalent social consequences was in the 1960s when a private members’ bill was used to legalise abortion. Private members’ bills were also used to pass other major social reforms on homosexuality and to abolish the death penalty," Mr Murphy said. 

He said that he is grateful to "everyone who shared their thoughts with me over the months leading up to today, particularly those who shared their poignant personal stories of loved ones at the end of life.

"The passage of this bill is a significant moment. I will continue to engage with its progress through Parliament and, if it passes in full, ensure its implementation is compassionate and effective in delivering choice without coercion at the end of life."