The quest for people to die with dignity is paramount

It might be thought that the British people have had long enough to think about the subject of assisted dying. The broad principle that people should be able to end their lives if they are in incurable pain has long been supported.

Indeed, the second question asked in 1937 by Gallup, the first company to carry out opinion polls with representative samples in Great Britain, was: “Do you consider that doctors should be given power to end the life of a person incurably ill?” A two-thirds majority, 69 per cent, said “Yes”, and 31 per cent said “No”.

Opinion polls today produce similar findings, or even more extensive support for the idea. Yet the doubts about the private members’ bill that seeks to legalise assisted dying are crowding in. Even if the bill, introduced by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP for Spen Valley, clears its first hurdle of a vote of the House of Commons on Friday, its chances of making it to the statute book now seem uncertain.

Doubts about the bill have not yet been adequately addressed. While the principle of the right to choose in death may seem straightforward, we do not yet know how it would work in practice. Those practical questions must be thoroughly and satisfactorily answered.

Gordon Brown, the former prime minister, argued on Friday, “assisted dying is not the only option available, nor even a good option when set against the palliative support that could be available in ensuring a good death”.

In this, he echoes the concern of Wes Streeting, the health and social care secretary, who has said that he will vote against the bill because he thinks it is the wrong priority. He argues that the priority is to improve end-of-life care for everyone, rather than to make a change in the law that would divert resources for a few.

Mr Streeting’s argument is significant for two reasons. One, he used to support assisted dying and has changed his mind. That does not mean he is right, but it does suggest that he is worth listening to. The other reason is that, as health secretary, he would be the minister ultimately responsible for implementing the policy. Again, that is not a decisive argument against the bill, but it should give us pause for thought.

Questions remain on assisted dying. We do not know whether the safeguards in Ms Leadbeater’s bill are secure enough. We do not know what the long-term consequences of this law might be. Reports of how assisted dying law works in Canada, where people have come under pressure to end their lives to save their families or the state money, are concerning.

This bill asks Britain, as a nation, to make a fundamental change. As Mr Brown said: “An assisted dying law, however well intended, would alter society’s attitude towards elderly, seriously ill and disabled people, even if only subliminally.”

MPs on Friday should make this fundamental change to British law only if they are sure adequate safeguards are in place.

It is worth considering Mr Brown, who spoke with great wisdom and moral authority when he said: “Britain usually moves too slowly on those matters where it should move fast. But sometimes, as now, it can move too fast on an issue where it should go slower, listen and learn. And with the NHS still at its lowest ebb, this is not the right time to make such a profound decision.”

It is also worth remembering that the quest for people to die with dignity is paramount. We must, meanwhile, always concentrate on making end-of-life care the best and most comfortable it can be.