I have decided to vote in favour of the assisted dying bill. My reasons are as follows:

Firstly, and simply, as a liberal, I fundamentally believe in empowering people to make decisions about their own lives – including at the end of life. I believe that people with a terminal illness deserve to live and die with as much dignity and control as possible and it is time for the UK to adopt a compassionate, regulated assisted dying law to give people that choice.

Secondly, we must acknowledge that assisted dying already exists - but only for those wealthy enough to afford it. Those who can travel to Dignitas in Switzerland have the option, while others are left to suffer through their final days and hours. This stark inequality is something I strongly oppose. Everyone, regardless of financial means, should have the right to make choices about the end of their life.

I also deeply disagree with the fact that families who travel to Switzerland for this purpose face legal risks upon returning to the UK. They cannot bring their loved one’s body back home and could face arrest.

Despite believing in the importance of choice at the end of life, I was prepared to vote in favour of this bill only if it included the proper safeguarding measures – which I believe it does.

It is crucial to emphasise that this law would not impose assisted dying on anyone. It is entirely a personal choice, available to only those who want it. Furthermore, doctors would not be obligated to participate in the process, and only the patient would be permitted to administer the medication.

Following much deliberation and reflection, I will be voting against the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill next week.

While I recognise the profound importance of addressing end-of-life care and dignity, there are significant aspects of the proposed legislation that I am deeply concerned about. In addition, I believe that for such a massive change in the law the scrutiny and time allocated for this bill is far too limited.

My decision rests on a fundamental belief that we should prioritise greater investment in palliative care. Our focus must be on providing the highest possible standard of care, supporting individuals and families during these incredibly challenging moments, and offering greater confidence and protection to doctors who navigate complex treatment decisions at the end of life.

Whilst I am increasingly sympathetic to many of the arguments in favour of the bill, ultimately, I personally cannot support legislation that formally allows assisted death.

Moving forward I remain committed to working towards a healthcare system that treats all patients with dignity and compassion, without crossing the ethical boundaries that this bill represents.

I was genuinely openminded about this bill and wanted to take part in the debate to raise a few questions around safeguarding; however, further to the Prime Minister’s response to my question at Prime Minister's Questions last week, where I asked for more government time so MPs could properly debate the matter rather than rush it through with just five hours debate, I am now likely to vote to decline the bill a second reading.

There are valid arguments for and against the bill, but it is simply not acceptable for ask MPs to vote on a matter of conscience with so little time to consider the proposals. If the government would only allow for more time to debate this, MPs like myself would be able to properly consider the legislation.