Dying trainer sends heartwrenching letter urging MPs to vote for assisted dying – learn in full

A music teacher dying of cancer has said it would break his heart if assisted dying laws didn’t pass on the grounds of costs.

Nathaniel Dye, 38, whose stage 4 bowel cancer has spread to his brain, said it “horrifies” him to think MPs might be influenced by money. He said this “puts a price on how much I suffer”. In an emotional letter, Mr Dye, who played a key part in Labour’s election campaign, is sending a direct plea to the party’s MPs to back a bill to change the law ahead of its first vote next Friday.

It comes after Health Secretary Wes Streeting, who is Mr Dye’s MP, was criticised after ordering an analysis of the costs of implementing a change in the law. The Cabinet minister has already said he will vote against the Bill and was accused of using his government position to influence the debate.

In his letter Mr Dye said: “I don’t seek to tell anyone how to feel on an apolitical matter of personal conscience. But it would break my heart if this Bill were not to pass Second Reading on the grounds of potential cost to the NHS, which I have so personally and passionately campaigned to save. This argument essentially puts a price on how much I suffer and for how long as I die. This horrifies me.”

Mr Dye shared his tragic personal story of delays waiting for NHS cancer treatment in three major speeches and two party political broadcasts to help Labour get into power. He is now “respectfully disagreeing” with health chief Mr Streeting, who has said he is concerned about palliative care “not being good enough to give people a real choice”.

Mr Dye’s letter continued: “I simply ask: why can’t we have assisted dying alongside better care? Everyone agrees that palliative care can’t prevent suffering for everyone. I have experienced pain so acute and unrelenting that if it were permanent, I know that death would be the kindest option. I’m living proof that the best palliative care is not always enough for dying people at their darkest hour.”

Labour MP Kim Leabeater’s bill proposes giving terminally ill adults with less than six months to live the power to shorten their deaths if they wish. Each case must be signed off by two doctors and a High Court judge. The legislation would also make coercion an offence with a possible punishment of 14 years in jail.

Many of those opposed to a law change have voiced concern about coercion and also said the Bill has been rushed. Parliament’s longest serving MPs, Sir Edward Leigh and Diane Abbott, have made a joint plea for colleagues to reject the proposed legislation, and allow for more time to consider the “immense complexities” of the issue. Sir Edward told the Commons on Wednesday: “We need a national debate on a new social contract for a ballooning, frail and elderly population with multiple health needs.”

Concerns have also been raised about the level of scrutiny the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will get, as a private member’s Bill (PMB), rather than a Government Bill. But Sir David Natzler, former House of Commons clerk, has written to Ms Leadbeater to say PMBs “go through the same legislative scrutiny procedures as Government Bills”.

Last week Commons Leader Lucy Powell said the Bill, if it clears its first hurdle, would “likely” spend “several weeks” at committee stage, at which MPs can table amendments. The Bill would then not be expected to clear its final stages in the Commons until April next year at the earliest, and the Government would ensure it is “workable” if supported by MPs, Ms Powell added.

Nathaniel Dye’s letter in full

Dear MP,

I hope you don’t mind my appealing directly to you.

My name is Nathaniel Dye and I am proud to say that in three major speeches and two Party Political Broadcasts I shared my tragic personal story of delays waiting for NHS cancer treatment in order to illustrate just how much this nation needs a Labour Government to deliver the public services we all deserve. It does my heart good to see you and your colleagues in office.

I continue to place all the good faith I have behind my local MP, and good friend, Wes Streeting; I was in tears at his conference speech, because I’ve lived to see the change begin. It’s real and it’s happening right now. And that hasn’t changed because Wes and I respectfully disagree on the Assisted Dying Bill. Indeed, I have been personally assured that he is comfortable with us disagreeing on this upcoming free vote, and that should this Bill pass, Wes will work in his capacity as Secretary of State to fully enable its implementation.

Please allow me the opportunity to express to you as a lawmaker what the Assisted Dying Bill could mean to dying people like me. It would offer choice and freedom at the very end of life. The chance to seek an end to unbearable suffering if and when it is certain that all I will know is a slowly unfolding death, humbled by unrelenting pain.

Let me be clear. I wish to live as fully as I can and for as long as possible. It would simply bring me comfort, solace and the smallest measure of self-control when all of those autonomies have long since abandoned me. I do not advocate for assisted dying just for the sake of myself. I have lost my closest loved ones before their time and know that my family will have to live with the manner of my death for the rest of their lives. Most of all, it is for them that I seek my right to die with dignity and compassion, just as I have lived.

I have the utmost faith that you will carefully consider the detail of Kim Leadbeater’s Bill and how it conscientiously addresses a number of common concerns. It safeguards against coercion and makes this illegal. That in itself is enough for me, even as I become more vulnerable by the day. I have many fears around my demise, but do not feel any danger of being coerced because the evidence is overwhelming. In countries where assisted dying is legal for terminally ill adults only, there is no documented case of anyone being coerced to seek an assisted death. In fact, the opposite is true: families often beg their loved one to stay alive so they can spend that little bit longer together.

It has been put to me that palliative care needs to be improved in order to give dying people a real choice. I simply ask: why can’t we have assisted dying alongside better care? Everyone agrees that palliative care can’t prevent suffering for everyone. I have experienced pain so acute and unrelenting that if it were permanent, I know that death would be the kindest option. I’m living proof that the best palliative care is not always enough for dying people at their darkest hour. And in the meantime, I don’t have any choice at all if my suffering is intolerable and palliative care doesn’t relieve my symptoms.

I don’t seek to tell anyone how to feel on an apolitical matter of personal conscience. But it would break my heart if this Bill were not to pass Second Reading on the grounds of potential cost to the NHS, which I have so personally and passionately campaigned to save. This argument essentially puts a price on how much I suffer and for how long as I die. This horrifies me.

As I understand it, the Second Reading is about the principle of the bill. Of course safeguards must be comprehensive. It’s your duty to protect every one of your constituents (the majority of whom support assisted dying) and that must weigh heavy at times such as this. But if you agree that it is possible to ensure people will not die against their will, then I urge you to vote for the Assisted Dying Bill in order for it to proceed to months of committee scrutiny, amendments and further votes in Parliament.

I look forward to seeing you attend Parliament on Friday 29th November, to debate and vote on the Assisted Dying Bill, and I offer my heartfelt thanks for the gravity with which you approach this deeply complex and highly emotive issue.

Please know that I appreciate your efforts. My very death is in your hands.

Yours Faithfully,

Nathaniel Dye