Tuesday, November 12, 2024

Container Fire Prompts Maersk Boxship to Divert to Tenerife

The container ship Rhine Maersk was forced to make an emergency port call in the Canary Islands on Sunday after crew members detected dangerously high temperatures in several cargo containers.

Rhine Maersk was northbound on a voyage from Abidjan to Algeciras when she diverted to Tenerife, arriving at the port's eastern dock at 1020 hours Sunday. Five containers filled with charcoal (or coal) had begun to self-heat, a known storage and transport risk with these materials.

The port's emergency responders quickly put out the fire by injecting water into the affected containers and simultaneously cooling adjacent units, averting what could have become a more serious emergency. The local fire department dispatched units as a precautionary measure, but the incident was under control by the time they arrived.

Rhine Maersk shifted berths to Tenerife's container terminal to offload the fire-damaged boxes, and will get back under way once salvage operations are completed.

The near-miss highlights an ongoing safety challenge in container shipping. According to insurance giant Allianz, while overall vessel losses have declined by more than 50 percent in the past decade, container ship fires remain a persistent threat, occurring on average every 60 days.

"There is clearly a problem with both misdeclared and incorrectly packaged cargo," said Captain Andrew Kinsey, Senior Marine Risk Consultant at AGCS, Allianz's maritime division, in an update last year. "Regulations and guidelines for dangerous cargo exist, but they are not being adequately enforced and adhered to."

The Rhine Maersk incident comes just months after a more serious fire aboard another Maersk vessel, the Maersk Frankfurt, off the Indian coast in July. That blaze, which took four days to extinguish and claimed the life of one crew member, began in a container and quickly spread.

Ferry Evacuated After Running Aground in the Central Philippines

Philippine ferry aground — Interisland ferry went aground while operating in shallow water in the Central Philippines (PCG)

The Philippines Coast Guard is reporting the safe evacuation of an interisland ferry that ran around on November 11 providing some dramatic images of the ferry. The passengers were taken safely to shore while the coast guard was continuing to monitor the movement of the vessel and determine the cause of the grounding.

The ferry Maria Oliva (371 gross tons) operated on a six-hour inter-island trip in the central Philippines in the Romblon region. The vessel was reported to be in the vicinity of Romblon port when it grounded. The vessel a RoPax built in Japan in 1973 has been operating in the Philippines since 1997.

When the vessel grounded there were 156 passengers aboard as well as 38 crewmembers and 26 trucks.

The Coast Guard Station Romblon immediately dispatched a rigid hull inflatable boat to conduct rescue operations. The provincial government of Romblon also fielded a speedboat while the municipal disaster risk reduction and management office sent a rescue boat to augment the PCG’s force.

“All passengers were safely transferred to Romblon Port, except for a dialysis patient and his companion since he needed access to his dialysis equipment, which was in his vehicle on the vessel,” the PCG said.

The Coast Guard reports so far there has been no oil spill or flooding observed. The vessel continues to be monitored for movement while they determine how to refloat the ferry.

It is operated by Montenegro Shipping Lines, one of the large ferry operators in the country. The company has a fleet of 59 vessels and served 39 ports on three islands.

Canada Orders Binding Arbitration to Reopen BC and Montreal Ports

Vancouver port — Canada's federal government ordered binding arbitration to resume operations at the West Coast and Montreal ports (file photo)

Canada’s federal government stepped in on Tuesday, November 12, imposing final and binding arbitration for the labor disputes that stopped work at ports along the West Coast in British Columbia as well as in Montreal. The move came as pressure had been building on the government as commerce groups and business leaders predicted a wide-ranging impact on the economy.

“Thousands of Canadian jobs, our economy, and our reputation as a reliable trading partner,” Steven MacKinnon, Canada Labour Minister, said were being significantly impacted by the lockouts in Canada’s largest ports. He recognized that collective bargaining negotiations were at an impasse saying the impacts are being felt by all Canadians. “We simply cannot afford this uncertainty and instability at this moment.”

MacKinnon highlighted that C$1.3 billion (US$930 million) in goods was being affected each day. Containerships were waiting offshore along with bulkers with only grain terminals remaining open at ports ranging from Vancouver and Prince Rupert on the Pacific to Montreal in the east.

Yesterday the minister issued a statement urging the employers and unions to resume talks after talks broke down in BC on Saturday and union members nearly universally voted down the proposal in Montreal on Sunday. He said “Canadians are counting on them,” and that both sides “must understand the urgency of the situation.”

On the West Coast, the BC Maritime Employers Association locked out 700 foremen on November 4. The union called it an overreaction saying the strike was only a refusal for overtime but the employers said it created a level of uncertainty and could easily escalate. In the East, the Maritime Employers Association set a deadline on Sunday after presenting what it called its final offer after two container terminals had already been closed by a strike. They locked out 1,200 union dockworkers starting on Monday.

“I have invoked my authorities under the Canada Labour Code to secure industrial peace and protect the interests of all Canadians.” Said MacKinnon. He directed the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) to order a resumption of operations and assist by imposing final and binding arbitration.

For the workers in Montreal, it is the second time in recent disputes the federal government has stepped in to impose the settlement. The union blamed the current two-year dispute on the failure to resolve issues of work-life balance in the prior arbitration. Last year, the government stopped short of imposing arbitration but pressured a settlement in a 13-day walkout by dockworkers in British Columbia.

Many experts had said the employers’ stance and the move to lockouts in the current disputes was pressuring the government to act. The federal government has repeatedly said it preferred collective bargaining but in August it had stepped in to settle strikes at Canada’s two large, national railroads.

The Maritime Employers Association responded today issuing a statement saying it welcomed the intervention. It said it was waiting for instructions from CIRB. On the West Coast, the BCMEA issued a statement saying it "intends to follow direction received from the CIRB."

The ports are expected to resume operations within days.

German socialist slams new motion on Palestine

The German parliament has passed a new motion to curb free speech over Palestine which will 'be used for repression', says activist Ramsis Kilani

The German Palestine movement faces severe repression (Photo: Montecruz Foto)

By Yuri Prasad
Monday 11 November 2024

SOCIALIST WORKER Issue

The German government last week passed a motion on antisemitism that it hopes will silence critics of Israel and its war on the Palestinians.

The final draft of the resolution, titled, “Never again is now—protecting, preserving and strengthening Jewish life in Germany”, had the backing of all the mainstream parties.

It is likely to lead to further attempts to “cancel” artists, academics and activists. The state will use the motion as a pretext to withhold funds for galleries, exhibitions, universities and social spaces that dare to allow pro-Palestine voices.

The motion had little to do with the actual fight against antisemitism in Germany. This should have been clear when the fascist Alternative for Germany (AfD) happily voted for it. AfD politician Jurgen Braun highlighted mass immigration as “the main problem endangering Jewish life in Germany”.

Beatrix von Storch, also of the AfD, thanked the Green Party for adopting the AfD’s position on “imported Muslim antisemitism” in the resolution.

Passing a parliamentary motion does not have the effect of a law. Nevertheless, the government designed it to have a chilling effect on free speech on Israel, and to make organising solidarity for Palestine more difficult.

“It’s not a law but it will be used for repression, just as a similar motion on boycotts, disvestment and sanctions (BDS) was,” says socialist activist Ramsis Kilani.

“People who raise the question of Palestine within the main political parties are already under massive pressure,” he said. “That includes some members of parliament for the Labour-type SPD.

“But there is also pressure in the left wing Die Linke party, where it is becoming difficult to raise solidarity for the Palestinian resistance. Several party activists are now under leadership investigation.

“That’s a new development. Until recently, those with anti-imperialist politics were a minority but were accepted.”

In parliament, Die Linke abstained on the final vote, while the racist split from Die Linke, the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance, voted against.

Most of the left is now focused on a coming general election and is anxious to avoid controversy. That spells danger for a Palestine movement already facing massive state repression and isolation.

“We need now to resist the consequences of the parliamentary motion and support those affected, especially those without citizenship and lawyers,” says Ramsis.

“And, to be effective, we have to expand the movement. Lots of people, including college lecturers and students, will be affected by the motion. They might not share all our anti-Zionist politics but will be incensed by curbs on their freedom of speech on Palestine.

“That means there are contradictions in the situation that we can build on.”

Towards Irish Unity

HubMP2012

By Nadine Finch

NOVEMBER 12, 2024

The Republic of Ireland goes to the polls in a general election on 29th November 2024. The two parties who form the present coalition government, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, have been, collectively or individually, in power there since 1927. Fine Gael’s new leader, Simon Harris, has been enjoying a surge of popularity but, over the last few days, he has courted controversy after Michael O’Leary, group CEO of Ryanair, criticised the ability of teachers at a Fine Gael event and his party advocated for charter flights to remove asylum seekers.

Sinn Féin, who will be speaking at the Labour for Irish Unity meeting on 18th November, have been the official opposition for the last few years and are the only other party in contention to form a future government. But the political landscape is complicated by the large number of smaller parties and independents, who will also attract voters who are unhappy with the performance of the coalition government but for very diverse reasons.

The Irish government was vocal in its support for Palestine, but its social and economic policies are clearly on the right of the political spectrum. In contrast, Sinn Féin are running on a progressive platform especially in relation to housing, a nationalised health service and the need for an all-Ireland economy. It also has the most coherent and immediate plan to pave the way to Irish unity.

Elsewhere on the island of Ireland, Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill is the First Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly and civil and human rights once again engage a powerful narrative. The latter development is because the Labour Government has chosen to retain key parts of the Tory Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 instead of immediately and completely restoring a court-based system of inquests, ombudsmen and public enquiries. At the same time, the discussions, led by the civil society organisation, Ireland’s Future, are attracting interest from all but the most obdurate Loyalist voices.

It is in this context that Labour for Irish Unity’s meeting on 18th November at Portcullis House serves to offer an opportunity to both educate and open up a dialogue for those in the Irish diaspora and their British supporters. The need for this dialogue and education has never been more pressing since the dark days of the 1970s and 80s and the early 1990s.

This is for a number of inter-related reasons. The Labour government’s continuing role in providing arms and intelligence to the Israeli government, and the Foreign Secretary’s ahistorical and legally flawed definition of genocide, indicate its failure to acknowledge the international right to self-determination and Britain’s legacy of settler colonialism, both in Palestine and Ireland. The latter is a very early example of this legacy and Northern Ireland remains a continuing price to be paid by the Irish.

The Labour government’s increasing support for the criminalisation of protest and its implicit support for English exceptionalism reminds many individuals of the recent past when being Irish rendered them part of a ‘suspect community’. The same is true for the current use of the Terrorism Act to stifle debate on the situation in Palestine by detaining journalists and political activists and seizing their data and working tools.

Furthermore, the manner in which the arrival of asylum seekers is now widely characterised by government sources as an ‘invasion’, threatening the economic prosperity of the indigenous population reminds all migrant communities, including the Irish, of the fragility of their welcome in some parts of Britain.

On another, albeit just emerging and more subtle level, the creation of a Council of the Nations and Regions would appear to treat the three other nations in the UK as the equivalent of an English city or region and remind them that the existence of their assemblies or parliaments depend on the English government continuing to devolve some powers to them.

The Labour for Irish Unity meeting on 18th November will be the first of a series of meetings exploring these issues and seeking to bring together members of the Irish diaspora, including a number of prominent voices in the trade union and emerging social movements, to offer an analysis of how to build an alternative to the growing power of the populist right in Britain.

Nadine Finch is Vice-Chair of Labour for Irish Unity.

Bill to legalize assisted-dying introduced in British Parliament

The British parliament published an assisted-dying draft bill that would give terminally ill adults with less than six months to live the legal right to end their lives with the help of medical professionals. The bill was introduced Tuesday ahead of a debate and vote scheduled for November 29. The last time the House of Commons voted on the issue in 2015, the change was heavily defeated. File photo by Hollie Adams/EPA-EFE

Nov. 12 (UPI) -- The British parliament published an assisted-dying draft bill Tuesday that would give terminally ill adults with less than six months to live the legal right to end their lives with the help of medical professionals.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, a so-called private members' bill introduced by Labor MP Kim Leadbeater, would legalize assisted dying for mentally competent patients in England and Wales who have made a "clear, settled and informed decision" and have not been subject to any form of coercion or pressure.

The patient must make two witnessed and signed declarations of their desire to die and two doctors must independently certify, a minimum of seven days apart, that the patient meets the requirements before one of them must go in front of a High Court judge.

The judge will have the power to cross-examine the patient and any other person germane to the case before signing off on the request. After that, there would be a further 14-day cooling-off period.

A doctor can supply the lethal life-ending medication, but it can only be taken by the patient without assistance from any person -- disqualifying patients already incapacitated by their illness.

Lawmakers will debate and vote on the legislation, which would apply in England and Wales only as Scotland already has a similar bill passing through its parliament, on Nov. 29. If it receives the support of a majority of MPs it goes to a second reading, committee and report stages before returning to the House of Commons for a third reading.

It could then be further amended before going to the king to receive final royal assent.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer said MPs in his party would be allowed a "free vote," meaning lawmakers can vote according to their conscience as the government does not have a rigid stance on the issue.

An upper house version, introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Falconer in July is awaiting its second reading, although bills that start in the Lords rarely succeed in becoming law.

Leadbeater told BBC Radio that the time was right for the question to be revisited as it had been nine years since parliament last debated the issue.

"As it stands, the status quo is not fit for purpose," she said.

Leadbeater denied it would lead to a slippery slope in which the right would be given to more groups -- physically or mentally disabled people , for example -- or that people would feel pressured to end their lives to ease the caring and financial burden on their families, the National Health Service, or society.

She said there would be "checks, safeguards and balances the whole way through" and that once passed, the law would not be able to be amended.

"It's about shortening death rather than ending life,"

However, Liberal Democrat Party leader Ed Davey, who has a disabled child, said he would vote against the bill because instead of "increasing freedom" the change in the law could make people feel they are a liability and put pressure on them to act and might have broader implications for people who do not have a terminal illness.

Leadbeater said her bill provided "the strictest protection and safeguards of any legislation anywhere in the world."

Opponents argue that the way to address the suffering and pain of terminally ill people is through better palliative care, which all sides agree is not as good, or as widely available, as it could be.

Doctors will not be compelled to cross any personal ethical red lines and the body representing the profession, the British Medical Association, has been pushing hard for all doctors to be automatically "opted out," so that they would be required to actively put themselves forward for duties involving assisting in a patient's death.

However, the most recent surveys show the opinions of British medics shifting in favor of assisted dying with 53% of respondents questioned last year by the Royal College of Surgeons saying they supported the idea.

A cross-party group of MPs made up of practicing doctors and surgeons have written to MPs urging them to back the assisted dying bill, but Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood and opposition Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch and many other politicians have said they oppose the change and will vote against it.

The Our Duty Of Care group, in a letter Tuesday to Starmer signed by more than 3,400 NHS staff, warned it was impossible for any government to draft assisted suicide laws which include protection from coercion and from future expansion.

"Canada has clearly demonstrated that safeguards can be eroded in a matter of just five years; it has been roundly criticized for introducing euthanasia for those who are disabled and plans for the mentally ill have been paused because of international concern," the group wrote.

"Any change would threaten society's ability to safeguard vulnerable patients from abuse; it would undermine the trust the public places in physicians; and it would send a clear message to our frail, elderly and disabled patients about the value that society places on them as people."

The group also pointed to the U.S. state of Oregon citing assisted dying laws there as being responsible for pushing people toward ending their lives.

"Far from one person's decision affecting no one else, it affects us all. Some patients may never consider assisted suicide unless it was suggested to them. Nearly half those who choose assisted suicide in Oregon cite 'feeling a burden,'" it said.

Currently, helping someone to commit suicide in the United Kingdom is punishable by a maximum prison sentence of 14 years. The law also applies to helping someone to access assisted dying services in another country where it is legal, in Switzerland, for example.

The proposed British law shares many similarities with the law passed in Oregon in 1997, under which assisted dying has remained restricted to terminally ill adults only, and is far more strict than the law in the Netherlands which has been in place since 2001 under which a person's illness does not have to be terminal.

Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain and Portugal have also passed assisted dying laws with France becoming the most recent European nation to embrace the change with an end-of-life care bill as an option for mentally competent and terminally ill adults expected to become law by 2026.

Italy, Germany and Austria have all decriminalized the practice in the past five years.

The U.S. states of California, Colorado, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, Washington, New Jersey and the District of Columbia also have assisted dying laws.

AS HAS CANADA

LabourList readers overwhelmingly back legalised assisted dying – but less sure safeguards are adequate

James Moules 12th November, 2024

LabourList readers overwhelmingly support moves to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales as a private members’ bill on the subject is set to face debate in parliament later this month.

In a survey from today’s email newsletter, our readers backed the measure proposed in Kim Leadbeater’s PMB – but were less certain that sufficient safeguards are in place.

The issue of assisted dying has seen passionate debate in the Labour ranks over the past few weeks, with advocates arguing it would give terminally ill people a chance to end their life on their own terms, while critics are concerned that insufficient safeguards could see vulnerable people coerced into making the decision against their will.

Based on 528 responses, our survey found that 71% of LabourList readers support the legalisation of assisted dying, with just 26% opposed.

However, a less overwhelming 55% thought that the safeguards proposed in the bill are adequate – with 25% saying they are insufficient and 20% of respondents unsure.

The bill would allow adults in England and Wales who are terminally ill to seek assistance in ending their life if they have a life expectancy of six months or less. They would be required to sign two witnessed declarations, have an assessment from two doctors and receive approval from a court.

Cabinet ministers are also divided on the issue, with Science Secretary Peter Kyle being among those to give it their backing. However, Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood have already voiced their opposition.

When asked about assisted dying during a press conference at the COP29 summit in Baku today, Keir Starmer said he would “study the details of the bill” and noted that there would be a free vote on the issue.

It comes as the Labour-affiliated group Christians on the Left released a statement saying: “What is being proposed in the forthcoming Private Members Bill is a change in the law to make it legal to assist someone to take their own life when they are faced with what they regard at that time as unbearable suffering.

“That is not the same as a decision to alleviate pain with a potential consequence of shortening the patient’s life. We believe that this legal change will mark a wider shift in the way our society regards human life, particularly how we view people who are terminally ill, elderly, disabled or otherwise vulnerable.”

As the leading dedicated Labour news and comment platform with readers across the party, LabourList hopes the poll may give some clues about Labour members’ views more broadly.

It should still be handled with some caution, however. LabourList is not suggesting this is a scientific, weighted poll that provides an exact representation of the views of all party members at large. While many members read our daily email, anyone can subscribe to it, and anyone can fill in the poll, member or not.

Assisted dying bill offers ‘strictest safeguards in world’, says MP

Daniel Green 11th November, 2024

Terminally ill adults with less than six months to live and who have a wish to end their own lives will be able to do so if approved by two doctors and the High Court under a bill being voted on later this month.

MPs will debate Kim Leadbeater’s private members’ bill on November 29, which would allow terminally ill adults to have the choice to end their life.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will only apply to people who are already dying and excludes both disability and mental illness as eligibility criteria.

Under the legislation, a terminally ill person resident in England and Wales who expected to die within six months will be able to choose to end their life, provided they have the mental capacity to make such a choice. At each stage of the process, the person must express a “clear, settled and informed” wish, free from coercion or pressure. Those wanting to end their lives would need to make two separate declarations, witnessed and signed, with the option available to change their mind at any time.

Two independent doctors would need to be satisfied that the person is eligible and, if necessary, consult a specialist in their condition and receive an assessment from an expert on their mental capacity. The application would then go before a High Court judge.

Both doctors would have to satisfy themselves that the person is eligible and has made the decision voluntarily and ensure the person is making an informed choice, including being made aware of other treatment options, including palliative and hospice care.

No doctor will be under any obligation to participate in any part of the process, according to the bill, and medication to end their life must be self-administered.

Bill ‘provides strictest safeguards anywhere in world’

MP for Spen Valley Kim Leadbeater, who is putting forward the bill, said: “On November 29, MPs will be deciding whether to allow my bill to go forward for further detailed scrutiny and amendment by both Houses of Parliament. It was my responsibility to put before them the best possible legislation and I believe I have done that.

“It has been nearly a decade since the Commons last voted on the issue and it could easily be as long before they get another opportunity, so I was determined to get this right. I have consulted widely with medical and legal experts, the palliative care and hospice sectors, disability rights activists and faith leaders and have heard from many, many people with their own personal experience of why the current law is not fit for purpose. This has been a thorough and robust process.

“MPs now have almost three weeks to look closely at this bill before the debate. I remain ready and willing to answer any questions they may have, because I don’t underestimate the seriousness of the issue. For my part, I have looked closely at the evidence from other jurisdictions and I believe this bill not only offers protections to people nearing the end of their lives that they don’t have at present, but also provides for the strictest safeguards anywhere in the world.

“I believe it is our duty as parliamentarians to give these proposals careful scrutiny and I hope MPs will agree with me that we can offer the safest choice to those who want it at the end of their lives, while at the same time working to make our already excellent palliative care provision even better and protecting the rights of people with disabilities, mental illness and other challenges to have all the support and care they need throughout their lives.”

Cabinet split on controversial bill

Labour MPs will get a free vote on the bill, which has divided the Cabinet. Several members, including Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, have already signalled they will vote against the bill when it comes to a vote later this month.

Science Secretary Peter Kyle, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy and Northern Ireland Secretary Hillary Benn have all expressed support for the bill.

Some members of the Cabinet, including Chancellor Rachel Reeves, are understood to still be undecided on the matter.

Science Secretary Peter Kyle will support assisted dying bill

Daniel Green 11th November, 2024,

Photo: Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

Science Secretary Peter Kyle has told constituents he will support the assisted dying bill when it is debated in Parliament later this month.

The MP for Hove and Portslade, who backed a similar bill in 2015, said his “position remains unchanged and… I support moves to legalise assisted dying”.

In a response to constituents seen by LabourList, Kyle said: “It is my belief that the trend in social policy in my lifetime has been to give more control to people, and, in general, that choices about our well-being and health are predominantly our own. However, when someone is diagnosed with terminal illness, more and more control returns to the state the closer you move towards the end of your life.

“Along with good care, dying people deserve choice to control the timing and manner of their death, and when death is inevitable, suffering should not be.”

Kyle also said that the matter for him has become an “issue of social justice”, highlighting how those with money have been able to travel abroad to countries like Switzerland to end their lives.

He said: “As someone who has entered politics to tackle inequality in all its forms, I think this is unfair; autonomy should not be limited to only those who can afford it.”

Kyle said provisions in the bill satisfy his concerns about protecting those in need and ensuring people don’t choose an early death for fear of being a burden on friends and family.

He said: “To qualify for assisted dying two doctors and a high court judge would have to certify that you are of sound mind, not being coerced, and have six months of life remaining.

“Disability quite rightly does not qualify as a terminal illness and neither does old age.”

It comes after four other members of the cabinet, Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds and Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones, indicated they will not support the bill, presented by Spen Valley MP Kim Leadbeater, when debated in the House of Commons.

Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy and Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn have said they will support the bill when it is debated in Parliament on November 29, while Chancellor Rachel Reeves said earlier this year that she is undecided on the subject.

The text of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is due to be expected tomorrow.

In an article for The House magazine, Kim Leadbeater said that the bill will “contain the strictest protections and safeguards of any legislation anywhere in the world”.

‘Why I and other Labour MPs are struggling with the arguments around assisted dying’

Sean Woodcock 9th November, 2024

Recently on my Facebook page, I posted a note in response to the confirmation by my colleague Kim Leadbeater that there would be a vote on assisted dying. As is the case with lots of MPs, I had already received considerable correspondence on the issue and wanted to set out my views and invite comments.

I received a lot of replies pretty much mainly all in favour of changes to the law on assisted dying.

My parliamentary inbox is not quite as one-sided. A lot of people writing to say they are opposed to the measure but like on Facebook there has also been support for it.

A close member of my family has a long-term condition for which there is no cure. Whilst now they are in every other way fit and healthy; one day, no doctor knows when, their quality of life will likely seriously diminish. And it will continue to do so. One day it may come to them wanting to make the decision on how they want to deal with death.

Yet I still find myself struggling on the issue and continue to look at all the issues being raised by both sides. A year ago, I knew where I stood very definitely; we should have some form of assisted dying. Now, I’m less certain.

Considering the arguments

I went to a Church of England school and was very actively religious growing up. But I lost my faith over a decade ago. So, my internal conflict is not because of faith or religion.

Then I return to first principles. I am appalled at what I see in the USA with women’s rights on abortion under attack. Autonomy over one’s body absolutely matters.

Equally, I remain strongly opposed to capital punishment, and there is ample evidence to be certain that innocent people have at some point paid with their life.

In the debate on assisted dying we hear a lot about safeguards, but any safeguards introduced won’t be as strong as the current law.

It remains possible, even likely, that those safeguards will occasionally fail and that someone will end their life through either coercion or lack of information.

Opponents of assisted dying, like opponents of abortion, should accept that not allowing it in this country doesn’t prevent people from ending their lives. It just makes it harder as those wanting to act it out must find a means to do so, likely by going abroad.

The better off will find this easier than those with fewer resources. As a Labour MP, of course I find this tricky; we’re all about equality.

But ending your own life should remain difficult, not the easy option and not encouraged by the state.

The reality is that it is something that across the board the state actively tries to prevent from happening and perhaps we should look at and improve end of life and palliative care before resorting to legislation for assisted dying.

To close, all of the above are reasons I along with many other MPs are struggling to decide on this issue, which may be a decision in itself.

Sean Woodcock

Sean Woodcock is Labour MP for Banbury.

View all articles by Sean Woodcock