Why I was relieved by Parliament's vote in favour of progressing the Assisted Dying Bill - Yorkshire Post Letters

I was much relieved by Parliament's vote in favour of progressing Kim Leadbeater's Bill on Assisted Dying. Contrary to some apparent views, this is not a final approval, but simply allows a full period of formal deliberations and close scrutiny to begin of the issues and proposals involved.

The subject is very serious, and highly emotive, with some strong opinions on both sides, so it was good to see the respectful and measured quality of the Commons debate which has allowed the process to move forward. Several MPs voting in favour at this stage are quite rightly reserving their position as regards later stages.

It has been disappointing to see that many objections so far have appeared to be attempts to shut down the discussion, at least within the parliamentary framework, rather than to actively progress the debate.

Several arguments put forward by those opposed to the bill, both in the Commons and on placards outside, have been arguments against areas clearly excluded by the proposals.

As Kit Sandeman reports (The YP, November 30) Rachel Maskell called the bill "wrong and rushed" - seeking to prevent the full discussion she thinks necessary but not yet happening?

Another MP told a sad story about a young child given a terminal diagnosis, but who survived well into adulthood. The Bill sets a clear limit against application of its provisions to minors.

Concerns about the disabled, or coercion in general, based on experiences in other countries, ignore significant differences in those places, including details within their provisions or their means for changing laws - the 'slippery slope' argument - which do not apply to our system or in the current proposals.

Other jurisdictions have laws similar to the proposals here, which work well and have not been changed since inception.

All the concerns obviously need deep discussion and clarity to be ensured in the final draft that will emerge, through the Committee Stage and further consideration and debate in both Houses next year, before any final Parliamentary decision is made.

It is reassuring that the bill Committee, to be chaired by Kim Leadbeater, will have powers to call expert evidence.

Hopefully this process will lead to a consensus about how to manage, with dignity and compassion, the final days of those with a definite terminal prognosis where even the best palliative care cannot help, and who retain their ability to make an informed choice.

As Kim Leadbeater herself stated in the debate, it is not an either/or situation; much better funding and wider provision of good quality palliative care are necessary in any case.