Column by Roz Savage MP for South Cotswolds in WGS

BEFORE Parliament adjourned for the party conferences, I had to cast my vote on a tremendously complicated moral issue.

From my mailbag, I know how strongly people feel on both sides of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

I want to explain why last week I voted against it, having previously supported it.

I continue to support assisted dying in principle.

My reasons remain deeply held.

My late mother was a member of Dignity in Dying, and through her I knew someone who wanted to travel to Switzerland to end her life but could not find anyone willing to accompany her.

I also know that, faced with terminal illness and unbearable suffering, I would want that choice myself.

But supporting the principle does not mean I can support any and all bills intended to deliver it.

Ultimately, I was not confident that this specific Bill provided a safe and workable framework.

Since my previous vote in June 2025, I have continued to listen, research and learn.

I have spoken with four local doctors, as well as other healthcare professionals and experts, and considered the wider evidence carefully.

The concerns they raised ultimately tipped the balance for me.

On a matter of life and death, MPs have a responsibility to keep listening to the evidence, right up until we vote.

My principal concern is whether we can reliably distinguish a free and settled choice to end one's life from one influenced by depression, loneliness, financial pressures, inadequate care or feeling like a burden.

The Bill contains safeguards, but these pressures can be subtle and extremely difficult to identify.

I was also concerned about the availability of good palliative care, which in most cases can alleviate a great deal of suffering.

But access remains far from universal.

Assisted dying must never become an alternative to providing people with the care and support they need.

Finally, I could not vote for the Bill assuming my concerns could be fixed later.

Under a fairly obscure aspect of Parliamentary procedure, there was a chance that amendments would not be allowed.

So I had to judge the legislation actually before me and concluded that I could not support it.

I know this decision will disappoint some who welcomed my previous vote, while others believe I should oppose assisted dying altogether.

I find myself in neither camp.

I still believe there is a compassionate case for assisted dying, but this Bill did not clear the bar for me.

This was a matter of conscience.

I listened carefully and wrestled seriously with the arguments on both sides.

While my mother believed passionately in assisted dying, I believe she would also have respected that I had a duty to reach my own conclusion.

I hope that, whether or not you agree with me, you will understand why I voted as I did.