MPs Suella Fernandes, Flick Drummond and Alan Mak help defeat Assisted Dying Bill

Suella Fernandes
Suella Fernandes
Have your say

MOST MPs in this area voted against a bill that would have allowed some people to choose when they died.

Fareham MP Suella Fernandes (pictured), Portsmouth South MP Flick Drummond and Havant MP Alan Mak voted no in the second reading of the Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Commons yesterday.

Portsmouth North MP Penny Mordaunt was not in the Commons to vote and George Hollingbery MP for Meon Valley was there but abstained.

In total, 118 MPs were in favour, with 330 against plans to allow terminally-ill adults to end their lives with medical supervision.

Mrs Drummond said: ‘There is no guarantee that even a terminally-ill patient is in the last six months of life.

‘There are numerous examples of people at their lowest, thinking about death, who have rallied and had several more months, if not years, of worthwhile life.

‘Even sufferers of debilitating conditions can live for a long time with a terminal illness and spend valuable time with their families.’

If it had been adopted then a terminally-ill patient – who has fewer than six months to live – could be prescribed and aided in taking lethal medication.

Their application would need to be approved by one attending medical practitioner and one independent, ensure the person was of sound mind, before going to the High Court for approval.

Mr Mak said he voted against the bill because there would not be enough safeguards in place.

He said: ‘I don’t think there are sufficient safeguards as more vulnerable people may feel pressure that they are burdens on their family, rather than doing it for the reason stated in the bill.’

Mr Hollingbery said: ‘I have no fundamental moral objection to assisted suicide, but I deliberately did not vote because the second reading of the bill was really about the principles of the legislation.

‘To have voted for the bill now would mean I approved of its general regulations, which I am not satisfied are sufficiently thought through.

‘To vote against would be to vote against the principle of the bill, which I have already said I do not object to.’