Select a region
A landmark debate about how Jersey could introduce a legal right for islanders to end their lives began in the States Assembly yesterday, with the Health Minister stating that it was time for the island to take another leap towards a “compassionate society” after embracing “voting rights for women in times gone by, and the overdue acceptance of homosexuality”.
After an ‘in-principle’ decision was made in 2021 to legalise assisted dying in Jersey, Politicians are being asked to vote on how such a service should work.
This will involve States Members voting on:
1. Establishing an assisted dying service for adult residents who have made a voluntary and informed decision to die.
2. Limiting eligibility to people with a terminal illness with a life expectancy of six months, or 12 months if they have a neurodegenerative disease (known as Route One).
3. The service being open to someone with an incurable physical condition which might not be terminal but is causing them unbearable suffering (known as Route Two).
4. An opt-out for health professionals, giving them a right to refuse to participate in assisted dying.
5. Minimum timeframes between the first formal request for an assisted death and the act itself – 14 days for route one and 90 days under Route Two.
Several members have so far risen to have their say in the landmark debate – here, Express summarises what has happened so far…
Deputy Binet, who prior to being a States Member campaigned strongly in favour with group End of Life Choices, said the proposed details were workable – and more detailed than plans put forward in other jurisdictions.
He said the proposals, which were largely developed by his predecessor before he took office in January, would have “excellent safeguards” that would be “hard-wired throughout”.
He rejected suggestions that a “slippery slope” would occur, saying that the States Assembly was the decision-making body for the Island and that no further changes would be brought in without the same degree of care as had been applied over the past two years.
“Just like overdue voting rights for women in times gone by, and the overdue acceptance of homosexuality in my own lifetime, I consider this to be yet another of those seemingly complicated issues that have to be dealt with, if we are to continue to develop a caring and compassionate society,” he concluded.
Deputy Steve Ahier said that the Health Minister and his officials should be congratulated on their work and for introducing something that would enable islanders to die with dignity and could become an “exemplar” to other jurisdictions.
Deputy Barbara Ward, who was a nurse for 45 years, spoke against the proposition.
“I never thought I would be debating such a highly sensitive and emotional proposition," she said.
"I see it as assisted suicide, and it goes against my professional code of practice and belief system.”
Deputy Malcolm Ferey spoke in favour of Route One.
He said Route Two – relating to unbearable suffering – would be “a step too far” and would “normalise giving up on people and people giving up on themselves”.
Deputy Hilary Jeune said she had remained a firm supporter of route one since being elected almost two years ago, but was concerned about clinical governance in Jersey and had not yet decided how she would vote regarding route two.
Constable Andy Jehan referred to the late broadcaster and journalist Gary Burgess, who had said: “It’s my life, and I should be free to do what I want as long as it doesn’t affect other people.”
He also said he had spoken to Charlie Tostevin, the former Chair of the Jersey Football Association who suffers with MND, which he said had influenced his view – he said he was “happy to give him… assurance” that he would be supporting the proposals after speaking to him at the Muratti over the weekend.
Deputy Scott opened this morning's debate by sharing stories of loved ones' suffering and arguing for the importance of individual autonomy at the end of life.
Recounting witnessing several family members in pain and discomfort despite high doses of morphine, she said: "We all want those close to death or who are suffering to be cared for and comforted. But it's not always possible to give that care and comfort every minute of a person's life."
The politician dismissed arguments about assisted dying being a "slippery slope", explaining: "The conditions in which that can occur remain restricted and safeguarded, carefully considered."
She emphasised that coercion is not a valid concern given the proposed legislation requires the person to self-administer the life-ending substance.
"If that person is not acting out of free will they would hesitate," said Deputy Scott. "They will not be forced to self-administer that drug."
Responding to the notion that assisted dying could lead people to view themselves as burdens, Deputy Scott argued the opposite, that being deprived of this choice could be "overly demanding on both ourselves and our families".
"Why deprive people of full mental capacity who are suffering unbearably this final act of autonomy of love and defend self love?" she asked.
Her address recognised that improving palliative care is crucial, but maintained "pain often is more manageable, knowing that it will be temporary and can be brought to an end for those who choose" assisted dying.
In conclusion, Deputy Scott said: "By approving all parts of this proposition we can make the journey towards death less painful and more tolerable for many."
Constable Simon Crowcroft expressed skepticism about the proposed assisted dying legislation in Jersey during his speech to the States Assembly this morning.
He questioned whether legalising assisted suicide should be a priority given the current pressures on the island's health service.
"We all know that our health service in Jersey is under enormous pressure," said Constable Crowcroft.
"I have to ask, why are we spending so much of our resources on pushing through this legislation?
"Is it more important than the other aspects of healthcare which have been neglected and which are in disarray?"
The Constable revealed he had received around 800 emails on the topic, with more constituents contacting him to oppose rather than support the proposed legislation.
"I've had far more emails from people who don't want this legislation to go forward," he said.
Constable Crowcroft raised concerns about potential coercion, dismissing suggestions from Deputy Scott that it would not be a problem.
"I am concerned that if someone is fully competent but nearing death, there will be pressure put on them...they will feel pressure that they should exit this world to help their family," he explained.
The politician argued that the island's hospice service currently manages end-of-life care well through professional care funded by donations, not Government.
"We are thinking about funding a route out of this life. I think it's wrong," said Constable Crowcroft.
He urged the Assembly to oppose the entire proposition and focus resources first on improving Jersey's healthcare system.
"We should get our house in order in terms of our health services, and then come back to the matter if we need to later," said Constable Crowcroft.
"It's not a race...my position hasn't changed so I won't be supporting any parts of this proposition."
Deputy Inna Gardiner expressed reservations about the proposed criteria around "unbearable suffering" that would allow assisted dying under Route Two of the proposed legislation.
She acknowledged the complexity of the issue, stating: "This is arguably the most emotive and complex subject that we can debate."
Deputy Gardiner thanked officers for their work, but said that new information had caused her to reconsider aspects of the propositions.
She also praised the scrutiny review, explaining: "Their scrutiny report actually raised a very valid question and recommendations, which I hope will be taken seriously."
A key concern for Deputy Gardiner was around evaluating what constituted "unbearable suffering" to qualify for an assisted death.
She pointed to examples like injuries from a car crash, stating: "Life-changing injuries from a car crash is a really wide category."
Deputy Gardiner highlighted that the proposition itself acknowledges suffering is "subjective and can fluctuate".
She said: "For me, it feels like a very wide, largely undefined category which is both objective, subjective and fluctuating."
The deputy questioned if this criteria would be "bolted down" in the final legislation to "include additional defined conditions".
Deputy Gardiner cited a report showing neurological diseases like motor neurone disease (MND) are among the most common for assisted dying requests elsewhere.
"Would it be possible...that people with MND can access assisted dying?" she asked.
While raising concerns about Route Two based on "unbearable suffering", Deputy Gardiner expressed belief in the principle of bodily autonomy.
"It is for me a basic human right to have autonomy over our body when the body is failing us," she said.
Deputy Catherine Curtis opened her speech by emphasising the difficulty of the issue, pitting the "sanctity of life" against individual autonomy.
Drawing from her experience working in a nursing home caring for the dying, as well as research and discussions on the review panel, Deputy Curtis said she is likely to vote for the first proposition allowing assisted dying for terminally ill patients.
"I value experience over belief," stated Deputy Curtis, citing emails from constituents who had lost family members as being four times more likely to support assisted dying than oppose it.
Deputy Curtis argued that while palliative care is "wonderful", it cannot guarantee a dignified, pain-free death for all terminally ill patients.
Raising concerns over the current system, the politician noted that "the reality is assisted dying for terminally ill people is already available to those who have financial means" through clinics like Dignitas in Switzerland.
"In the interest of fairness, shouldn't all terminally ill people have the option to die peacefully at home?" she asked.
However, Deputy Curtis expressed reservations about the second broader proposition due to the "subjective nature of suffering" and potential for coercion.
Pointing to examples of ageism, disability prejudice, and unethical pandemic policies, she warned of an "underlying bias" about whose lives are seen as expendable.
Deputy Curtis said: "While I can support Route One, I may not be able to support Route Two, even though I believe in individual autonomy."
She praised the "high quality" preparation work but said her "thoughts now are with those who are suffering and in poor health".
Constable Karen Shenton-Stone declared her intention to vote for both assisted dying propositions after over two years of "battling" with her conscience on the issue.
Describing it as "one of the most historic" and "most difficult" propositions ever faced, Constable Shenton-Stone nonetheless argued that terminally ill individuals should have the choice to end unbearable suffering.
She said: "This proposition is about letting those we love choose for themselves to go peacefully and with the soundness of mind, should they be in a position where to continue means unbearable suffering and the continued existence devoid of any quality of life."
The politician praised the "excellent" and "thought-provoking" speeches from colleagues, particularly Deputy Scott, noting how many had shared formative personal experiences.
Quoting a medical professional friend, she said society has a "duty to provide compassionate support and the means to avoid such untenable pain and distress" when palliative care fails.
Constable Shenton-Stone emphasised the proposition's restrictive nature and built-in safeguards, expressing trust in the assisted dying review panel's recommendations.
"The option of explicit personal choice is central to this proposition," she explained, stressing requirements for clear consent.
However, Constable Shenton-Stone acknowledged concerns raised by the disabled and elderly feeling like "burdens," adding: "We need a strong regime to care for anyone at risk of being forced into this."
Praising Jersey's "mature" debate as setting "a global example," Constable Shenton-Stone concluded by quoting the Dignity in Dying campaign: "We want to safeguard and compassionate law enacted that gives terminally ill mentally competent adults the option to control their final days."
In a speech delivered with "a degree of trepidation," Deputy David Warr outlined his opposition to bringing forward legislation to permit assisted dying in Jersey.
Deputy Warr acknowledged the potential for the issue to "drive a deep schism through our society," regardless of how he voted.
The politician expressed worry that enabling assisted suicide could lead society to "give up" on investing in improved care and treatments for terminal illnesses.
"Do we simply give up on them? Slow the research and development of appropriate drugs and push the assisted suicide option as a way to deal with unbearable pain?" he asked.
Deputy Warr raised concerns about the potential for mistakes, citing the average 5% error rate in medicine.
He asked: "What error rate would we tolerate when it comes to assisted suicide? Five in 100? Five in 1000? When it came to the death penalty, we as a society determined that just one error was one too many."
Deputy Warr referenced comments by former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson calling COVID "nature's way of dealing with old people" as an example of the "callousness" and prejudice that still exists toward the disabled and elderly.
"The line 'I don't want to be a burden' comes from that subtle coercion, which I believe we have yet to deal with," said Deputy Warr.
The politician argued that rather than introducing assisted dying, resources should be focused on improving existing healthcare shortfalls like the dementia strategy, neurodiversity support, suicide prevention, and 24/7 palliative care.
"Let's not put the cart before the horse," he urged.
Citing conversations with constituents, Deputy Warr concluded: "Given what I've heard and read...I cannot and will not support bringing forward of this primary legislation."
Deputy Philip Bailhache delivered a speech questioning the ethical premises behind the assisted dying propositions, particularly the second Route Two option regarding non-terminal disabilities and suffering.
While acknowledging differing opinions, Deputy Bailhache argued that "assisted dying is a cosy euphemism, which obscures the reality of the debate" about conferring medical professionals the legal ability to end lives.
He stressed the need for any conditions and safeguards to be "crystal clear and not subject to interpretation or indeed, subject to subjective appraisal".
Deputy Bailhache claimed the Health Minister was "dismissive" of an expert ethics review panel's recommendation that Route Two promoting personal autonomy for disabled people was "not ethically appropriate" and risked promoting "a negative view about the value of the lives of people with disabilities".
Citing the concerns of many disabled groups, Deputy Bailhache recounted an encounter with a disabled man at a grocery store who saw no "point" to living, arguing such temporary emotional states should not permit ending a life.
"The ups and downs of life can distort people's perceptions – and once all the gateways have been passed, it may be too late to reverse," he warned.
He further criticised the unclear standards for determining mental competency to make such a decision, questioning whether pro-assisted dying doctors would take "a simplistic approach that personal autonomy is what matters".
Deputy Bailhache said that a society telling disabled people "their lives may not be as valuable as those of able bodied people is not in my view, a compassionate society".
"It would be a community which has elevated the concept of personal autonomy beyond its reasonable limits," he said.
Deputy Monty Tadier made a case for the States Assembly to pass both propositions on assisted dying, dismissing arguments against as "red herrings" and accusing some Members of letting religious beliefs cloud their judgment.
Deputy Tadier contended the debate was not about the principle of assisted dying itself, which was decided three years ago, but rather about "whether we do this law properly, or whether we do it partially."
He insisted: "We either do this properly, or we don't do it at all."
The politician praised the thoroughness of the team bringing forward the propositions.
He said: "Whether we agree with assisted dying wholly, partly, or not at all, is that the staff and the level of commitment that they brought to that, to the level of intellect and research that they brought to this subject, we know that they will not leave no stone unturned."
Deputy Tadier pushed back against arguments about potential coercion or subjectivity in determining eligibility.
"The point is we don't choose," he said. "That's the great thing about this...it must be subjective, because there is still that rigorous process that somebody has to go through."
Deputy Tadier argued that not passing the second proposition regarding non-terminal suffering would deny human rights to disabled people.
"Can we seriously say that disabled people don't have the same human rights that others have?" he asked.
"Because we're saying that certain people are allowed to access assisted dying, but you're not allowed to access it because you're disabled and we think we know better for you."
He concluded: "Let's not make death a lonely thing. Let's let people choose how they want to die."
In her speech, Deputy Andy Howell argued against changing Jersey's laws to permit assisted dying, urging members to vote down both propositions.
Deputy Howell stated her intention "to defend the current laws of Jersey" prohibiting homicide and abetting suicide.
The politician expressed sympathy for the terminally ill but said: "I do not believe we should be altering the law.
"I do not believe that there are adequate safeguards – and the safeguards are certainly not 100% foolproof."
Howell raised concerns about the potential negative impacts on families, stating assisted deaths could take "an unimaginable toll" with loved ones feeling "their love was not enough."
She also questioned spending millions to set up an assisted dying service when funding should go toward "improving our healthcare...for everyone".
Deputy Howell claimed the propositions lack full backing from healthcare professionals, with "very many more completely and vehemently" opposed beyond the two doctors willing to participate.
She said: "We cannot afford to disenfranchise our frontline medical and healthcare staff at a time when we need them most."
Deputy Howell warned of a potential rise in overall suicide rates as seen in other jurisdictions like Oregon's 32% increase.
She also cited fears from disabled groups about assisted dying becoming "normalised" with "an expectation or duty to sign up".
Deputy Howell implored the Assembly to heed ethical experts' advice against the "unbearable suffering" proposition and medical experiences of misdiagnosed "terminal" cases ultimately living many more years.
"Human life is to be treasured...The best protection for everyone...is the current law where it is unlawful to kill," she concluded.
In her speech, former Chief Minister Kristina Moore outlined her reasons for opposing the proposed assisted dying legislation.
Deputy Moore expressed lingering "doubt" about proceeding with the law at this time.
A key concern cited was the need to improve Jersey's existing health services before introducing a "new and complex service".
Deputy Moore referenced the Hugo Mascie-Taylor report which made 61 recommendations on clinical governance, stating "relationships between senior health care practitioners are already quite strained enough".
She also highlighted findings from the Royal College Physicians report which revealed "a lack of governance not just in rheumatology but across the healthcare organisation".
Deputy Moore argued: "Time should instead be spent...ensuring that the 61 recommendations of the Mascie-Taylor report on clinical governance are implemented.”
She questioned adding an assisted dying service when "there is no money" for other healthcare strategies like suicide prevention and dementia.
The Deputy also raised concerns about eroding public trust, particularly among the elderly population who may view the introduction of assisted dying legislation as "an attempt to save money on care" as the over-80s demographic grows.
She said: "We need to continue our work to build that trust and confidence in our island's institutions."
While acknowledging differing views, Deputy Moore said: "Where we have doubt...make sure that we do not hold any doubt when we move to a vote today."
She concluded that, in her view, Jersey is “not ready to adopt the proposition today".
Deputy Jonathan Renouf expressed his support for the more restrictive Route One option allowing assisted dying for the terminally ill, but voiced reservations about immediately adopting the broader Route Two access.
Deputy Renouf began by acknowledging the "strong public support" for assisted dying based on consultation, stating "not a single survey or poll has shown majority opposition".
However, he cautioned that public backing for the principle does not automatically mean the specific proposals should be approved without scrutiny.
On Route One for the terminally ill, Deputy Renouf argued "the balance of risks suggests that route one is clear" and that concerns like incorrect diagnoses are outweighed by reducing suffering for those "in desperate need".
Quoting a doctor, he said "the urge to live is very strong" and people don't choose assisted dying simply due to a diagnosis but only when death is imminent and they are "in great pain".
Deputy Renouf argued Route One allows adequate safeguards, explaining: "It cannot happen by accident.
“If we want to go to Route Two in the future, it will only be possible after a debate in the Assembly."
On Route Two, Deputy Renouf expressed concerns about "exceptionally complex moral and practical issues" and the risk of moving too quickly into "very complex and controversial cases".
He questioned what impact one person's rights could have "on society as a whole", citing the potential impact on people living with severe disabilities warned against in an ethical review.
Acknowledging it would be "agonising" for Route Two supporters, Deputy Renouf argued that "we cannot satisfy all the demands for assisted dying".
Ultimately, he concluded "the balance of risks suggests that Route One is clear, but Route Two has too much uncertainty”.
Deputy Alex Curtis expressed his support for the proposed assisted dying laws, putting weight on previous in-principle decisions made by the legislature.
He said that previous decisions “were made with a body of evidence behind them, including the citizens' jury”. He argued "it does carry weight" even if not calling for "blanket approval."
While some Members questioned undertaking the legislative work given budgetary constraints, Deputy Curtis argued: “Now is not the time to consider in retrospect whether the work undertaken to date was valid."
He said that pursuing the principles already agreed was appropriate.
On concerns over prioritising assisted dying over improved palliative care funding, the Deputy said that "no amount of palliative care will address a torturous end of life that some go through".
Addressing the distinction between Route One for the terminally ill and Route Two for incurable cases, Deputy Curtis said: "This is being questioned whether it is a fundamental change in society's beliefs we are taking, although I don't entirely agree.”
He highlighted the Health Minister's aim "to be a society that cares for the rights and the pain" of islanders, while acknowledging "the duty on those who have a indefinite life expectancy...who may feel a burden is still not clear enough."
On safeguards, Deputy Curtis stated he is "comfortable with the safeguards provided" and that any future expansion would come before the Assembly, stating "It will always be for elected members to make that decision and then to be held accountable for it."
Citing a terminally ill parishioner who recently passed away, Deputy Curtis shared her view that "knowing the pathway was there would bring further comfort".
"My thoughts are with her family," he said.
In a comprehensive speech to the States Assembly, Deputy Raluca Kovacs outlined her opposition to the proposed assisted dying legislation, citing ethical concerns and prioritisation of healthcare resources.
A key issue raised by Deputy Kovacs was the potential impact on vulnerable groups like the disabled and elderly who "may feel pressured to end their lives." She questioned how to define criteria for "unbearable" suffering, especially for the broader Route 2 option, warning "It's that limited with the promises they won't be extended."
Deputy Kovacs highlighted the traumatic impact assisting in such situations can have, sharing the example of a friend who experienced "guilt" and "deep trauma and depression" after agreeing to remove life support from her mother.
The Deputy expressed concerns over safeguards and experience levels, asking how it will be proved that cases will be assessed correctly.
She questioned the legislation's impact on trust in the healthcare system amidst existing issues like "misdiagnosis" and staff potentially persuading patients certain treatments are "unnecessary" due to costs.
Deputy Kovacs asked: "How confident would severely ill people be...if they were to walk in a hospital unit knowing that assisted dying is also offered there?"
Citing the Hippocratic Oath to "save lives", Deputy Kovacs said: "Many practitioners are worried about having assisted dying included in the health system" as "this goes against their codes of practice."
With limited funds, the politician argued the estimated £2 million cost could better improve healthcare services, highlighting existing gaps in suicide prevention, palliative care, staffing and hospital facilities.
"We must also be pragmatic and prioritise where the available funds are most urgently needed," she said.
Contrasting the peadiatric GP visit proposal rejected due to cost, Deputy Kovacs said: "This seems contradictory. That £2 million allocated for assisted dying could be used to make significant improvements to health care services and improve the lives of many even in terminal stages."
She concluded: "Let's do this part of health right first...And then we can look at other options. With that being said I won't be supporting this proposition."
Deputy Ian Gorst outlined his opposition to the proposed assisted dying laws, stating there are still too many unanswered "good questions" around implementing such a policy.
A central issue for Deputy Gorst was ensuring protection for vulnerable groups in the community. He questioned whether sufficient safeguards exist, stating "I don't think we yet have good answers about how, if we agree this today, we will properly protect the most vulnerable members of our community."
Highlighting the risks of coercion, be it directly from family or more indirectly through how society values life, Deputy Gorst said: "I don't want to send any message from this Assembly today that we don't value every life in our community."
The Deputy also raised doubts about the "slippery slope" argument, acknowledging that while the Assembly would maintain control over legislation now, "those who come after us" may slowly undermine initial safeguards through future amendments. "Legislation comes and legislation goes," he cautioned.
On medical realities, Deputy Gorst cited the issue of misdiagnosis, which occurs between 2-10% of the time globally according to his estimates. "Medicine is not an exact science...we can't be absolutely certain," he stated.
Deputy Gorst praised the Assembly for prompting robust public dialogue, recounting meeting an islander who described his late wife's end-of-life experience in hospital, which the Deputy described as "not appropriate in our age."
However, he maintained "I don't think there is a good answer to that good question" around ensuring appropriate end-of-life care and settings.
Echoing comments about carefully weighing rights and ethics, Deputy Gorst stated "We've got to take that personal experience...and step back from that and make the decision that we think is right for our community."
He concluded by urging members "who are not sure, who are uncertain about whether they have good answers to those good questions" to oppose the proposition, as "from my part, we don't yet have good answers to all of those good questions."
In a fiery address to the States Assembly, Constable Deidre Mezbourian came out strongly against the proposed assisted dying laws, denouncing them as legalizing "state sanctioned murder".
Constable Mezbourian questioned the basis for even debating the proposition, noting it stemmed from a citizens' jury of just 23 people out of Jersey's over 103,000 residents at the time.
The Constable urged the Assembly to emulate Jersey's Youth Assembly which voted against assisted dying, stating: "The younger generation...voted against it."
A core argument was that approving the measures would "normalise the taking of a life" and "dehumanise our society".
Constable Mezbourian pointed to the legal realities, stating: "If a medical practitioner...administers medication, in a way intended to take a life essentially, that is murder."
She contended that under the law, a doctor administering life-ending medication would "essentially will be the state sanctioned murderer".
"That is what we will be doing," she said. "We will be sanctioning murder."
Constable Mezbourian expressed concern about gradual expansion once normalised, noting: "In Canada. It's become the norm. It's...crept gradually" to include more groups.
She highlighted the children's rights assessment, stating: "It's really interesting the way it have we thought about the impact on the children, those remaining of their loved ones deciding to end their life through assisted dying."
The Constable also questioned the Health Minister's priorities in a "brief term of office" and raised the costs involved versus funding other services like end-of-life care which she said urgently required investment based on her "raw" personal experience.
Concluding with an emotive appeal, Constable Mezbourian said: "I repeat my fear is that away from the Chamber...we dehumanise everyone in our society, we normalise the taking of life and we therefore value it. But we're not here to devalue life. We are here to value it."
She added: "I certainly would be proud to vote against this proposition."
Deputy Carolyn Labey outlined her support of the proposed assisted dying laws, framing it as a matter of personal choice over prolonged suffering.
"I'm going to stand here and speak for choice," said Deputy Labey, arguing that the proposition offers a humane option for those facing an agonising end to their lives with no prospect of recovery.
Drawing from personal experiences, the Deputy posed the question: "Would we want an end to pain and suffering which may go over many weeks and months and even years? If the quality of my life was non-existent, and I would never have the opportunity of getting better. Why would I want to prolong that agony and suffering?"
Deputy Labey stated she would want the option to pass "surrounded by my family at home" and "to be able to remember me content and content with my lot and at peace with the world".
"That is my choice," she said. "And what we have before us offers that."
Citing friends with terminal illnesses who favour the proposed assisted dying choices, including Simon Boas whose writings on life and death have inspired thousands worldwide, Deputy Labey urged: "I've always been taught to never judge a man or woman until you've walked a mile in their moccasins."
Recounting witnessing her brother-in-law deteriorate badly over three years, she said: "I would not have wished to live through and would not wish it on anyone".
Deputy Labey said: "We have the option of offering a choice. You don't have to take it but it might even bring comfort just knowing it's there if needed."
While acknowledging concerns raised over safeguards and governance, the Deputy emphasised: "The law has got to come back to this assembly and will be a place to scrutinise...all the concerns which had been raised already to give us choice."
In her closing appeal, Deputy Labey simply stated: "I do not have a terminal illness and I do not live with unbearable suffering. I do, however, know and have known those who have and do now."
Chief Minister Deputy Lyndon Farnham made an impassioned case for legalising assisted dying, speaking about personal autonomy, relief from suffering, and compassionate end-of-life care.
Deputy Farnham drew on personal experiences with his own parents' terminal illnesses to argue for giving individuals the right to choose how they end their lives.
"Assisted dying empowers individuals to make decisions about their own lives and deaths," said Deputy Farnham.
"For many patients with terminal illnesses, the end stages can involve significant pain, discomfort and a decline in quality of life, despite the very best palliative care."
The Chief Minister said that the proposed law contained robust safeguards to protect the vulnerable, which have been endorsed by the British Medical Association.
He said: "The Solicitor General has confirmed the proposals comply with our human rights obligations."
While acknowledging concerns about potential risks, Deputy Farnham argued that assisted dying offers "significant benefits" including "relief from suffering, psychological comfort and compassionate care".
He believes it will incentivise improving palliative services and pain management techniques.
Deputy Farnham said: "It is in our power to make a decision today that will reduce prolonged pain for individuals and grief for their families...the availability of assisted dying will serve as an incentive for the ongoing evolution of palliative care."
Deputy Farnham announced he would support the proposition in full, describing it as a "compassionate and humane choice" for those facing unbearable suffering at the end of life.
Constable Mike Jackson expressed reservations about legalising assistance due to the weight of negative opinions from constituents and medical professionals.
Constable Jackson questioned if the issue should have gone to a public referendum “given the clear split in public views on the matter”.
The Constable raised doubts about the proposed model's cost for the estimated number of cases, arguing funds may be better directed to dementia care, palliative services and "services that bring life and hope."
"It's easy to let emotion take charge but...the reality is that this will be a niche, expensive market," he said.
The Constable cited a letter from a consultant psychologist warning of the risks of assisted dying.
He also noted a lack of unanimous support from the medical profession made him "uncomfortable" backing the proposition.
Drawing on personal experience with a relative's death, Constable Jackson cautioned there could be "unintended consequences" for families from legalising the practice.
He said: "We mustn't ignore the fact that there will be unintended consequences to families if the proposition is supported today."
He concluded: "I don't believe that my morals and ethics allow me to support assisted dying proposals at this time."
Deputy Lyndsay Feltham voiced support for legalising assisted dying, including both the proposed "routes", but left open revisiting a two-track approach later if complexities arise.
"I do stand in support of the principle of assisted dying, because I do believe that people should have the right to choose a dignified death," the Social Security Minister said.
"This is a matter of conscience for us all."
While initially having reservations about the more contentious "Route Two" provision, Deputy Feltham said she was reassured by the proposed safeguards and scrutiny process.
"I have to then take myself to the point of unbearable suffering and whether I consider it appropriate to offer as an option, the ability for somebody to choose their own death in that circumstance," she explained.
However, Deputy Feltham requested the Health Minister consider potentially separating the two routes legislatively if Route 2 complexities risk delaying implementation of the base assisted dying option (Route One) desired by terminally ill islanders.
She said: "If it looks as if the complexities around delivering route two...mean that it would prolong the legislation and the delivery of route one, that potentially there might be an option...to bring route one back to the assembly prior to the legislation on Route Two."
Acknowledging the enormous difficulty of the issue, Deputy Feltham concluded by confirming her support for both routes at this stage, but leaving flexibility to revisit the legislative approach.
In his speech, Deputy Geoff Southern accused some members of using "cheap debating tactics" rather than addressing the core arguments around legalising assisted dying.
He emphasised three key principles at stake – choice, dignity and autonomy.
The politician criticised some contributors for persistently raising doubts and slippery slope arguments rather than focusing on facts and matters of conscience.
Deputy Southern also took issue with deflections about past healthcare funding shortfalls being used as excuses against progressing the assisted dying law.
"Let's start talking about the lack of investment in health...and start saying 'Oh yes, but we don't, we can't do that yet.’'" he said.
The Deputy made clear such tactics should not obscure the core principles at stake of preserving individual choice, dignity and autonomy over end-of-life decisions.
In a personal speech to the States Assembly, Deputy Philip Ozouf implored members to grant terminally ill islanders the "right to choose" the timing and manner of their death by supporting the proposed assisted dying law.
Drawing on experiences of friends facing terminal illnesses, Deputy Ozouf made an impassioned moral case for allowing this "life changing" reform.
"I believe that the current law on assisted dying is unfair," he said.
"It denies people who are facing a certain death the right to choose and to control their own life decisions, and it forces them to have unnecessary suffering – suffering which no one would wish to ask anybody to live through."
The deputy recounted spending friend Alain du Chemin's final night at Jersey Hospice before his death. He relayed this friend asking Deputy Ozouf to be his voice advocating for the choice of an assisted death.
"He would want me...to explain why the appropriate thing to do," said Deputy Ozouf.
"In my opinion, would be to allow individuals such as Alain du Chemin the right to have their death at the time of their choosing."
Deputy Ozouf expressed confidence in Jersey's proposed safeguards, noting assisted deaths remain a small percentage in permissive jurisdictions. He rebutted arguments against the law as "dire for the people that are dying".
Deputy Ozouf concluded: "I ask Members to kindly consider the voices of those terminally ill people and their loved ones who have advocated and advocate around the world."
In her speech, Deputy Lucy Stephenson called for clear differentiation between the concepts of assisted dying and suicide when discussing the proposed end-of-life choice law.
Deputy Stephenson, who has experienced suicide's "devastating impact" on families, argued the mindful use of language is crucial going forward.
"Assisted dying is not the same as suicide," Deputy Stephenson said.
"Suicide is often impulsive...a lonely and desperate act. We've heard what we're debating today referred to as suicide a number of times, and in the many emails and approaches that we've all received as well."
The Deputy pushed back on suggestions that allowing assisted dying could encourage more suicides in the community.
She said: "The evidence shows that just by talking about suicide in the community, it's now suggested by experts that there is no evidence to say that puts ideas into people's heads.
"The safeguards we put in place as we talk about assisted dying should also consider the experiences of families and of those left behind...by facilitating, protecting and allowing individuals to make those informed, supported, settled decisions."
While respecting "not everyone will agree" with the reform, Deputy Stephenson expressed hope families could take "some comfort" that assisted deaths would occur through "their loved ones' settled choice" in a "robust, well-governed and expertly staffed system".
The politician cautioned against "weaponising the use of the word suicide in objection to this debate" or implying criminality with legalese like "committed suicide." She urged mindfulness that language usage impacts the community discussion.
Praising the Assembly's "thought-provoking and emotional" debate, Deputy Stephenson highlighted public comments of "huge respect" for the proceedings as something to reflect on.
Deputy Kirsten Morel explained his decision to vote against legalising assisted dying, citing concerns over the island's ability to implement the practice safely given strained healthcare resources.
While backing the moral premise of individual choice, Deputy Morel argued the proposed law risked distracting from urgently needed improvements across the health service.
"I do believe from the moral perspective in the idea of choice over your own life," he said.
"I am concerned that by placing a new service, that service will become prioritised – it will get the attention. The other services will get less attention."
Deputy Morel said he has been directly approached by nurses, GPs and consultants about "concerns about the health service" already struggling with staffing, safety issues, lack of services like full-time palliative care and more.
"For all the moral correctness of it, is it practically achievable?" he asked.
"Is it practically the right thing to do? Can we assure that focus here will not take from focus on other services within the health service?"
The politician firmly rejected the more permissive Route Two option involving healthcare professional administration, warning it carried too high a "slippery slope" risk of expanding criteria over time based on subjectivity around "unbearable suffering".
While acknowledging "institutional coercion" dangers from private sector providers like care homes prioritising finances over ethics, Deputy Morel said more safeguarding work was needed before implementation.
Summing up, he said: "I shall not be voting for either part of this proposition. But for two very different reasons."
In a brief but emotional speech to the States Assembly, Constable Philip Le Sueur revealed his decision to oppose legalising assisted dying in Jersey was guided by his personal "moral compass" and ethical standards.
Drawing on difficult experiences visiting his late father at Overdale and the loss of a close family member, Constable Le Sueur stated he could not envision ever facilitating an early death himself.
She said: "If somebody offered me a syringe or little vial of something or other to say this will help to ease him on his way, could I have done that? Could I have administered that to my father? No, I couldn't."
In a hypothetical scenario, he said his moral principles prevented him from metaphorically "pressing P" for an assisted death option, stating: "I will be pressing C for both of these propositions.
While acknowledging the "compelling arguments" on both sides from constituents, Constable Le Sueur made clear his vote came down to adhering to his own deep-rooted ethical position on the sanctity of life.
He argued that, for some Members, personal experiences and moral conviction ultimately guided their stance more than the complex policy details of safeguards or qualifying criteria.
Summing up his perspective, the Constable said: "It comes down to my own moral compass, ethical standards, what I feel is right for our community."
In his speech, Constable Mark Labey revealed how personal experiences with elderly relatives and a family member's mental health struggles have shaped his position on the proposed assisted dying law.
While committed to supporting the measure based on a hustings pledge, Constable Labey said he would back just the core "Route 1" terminal illness provision, not the more expansive "Route 2" option.
Constable Labey recounted being disturbed by witnessing a "very close" relative's suffering and references to feeling a "burden" during a recent medical situation requiring special assistance services in Southampton and Jersey.
"I really don't like hearing that word 'burden' as it has been used in that context," the Constable said.
He also cited a traumatic presentation from Canadian authorities that made him reconsider endorsing the Route 2 aspect involving advanced requests for non-terminal conditions.
"The Canadian one frightened me in many ways and unfortunately has put me off voting for Route 2," Constable Labey explained.
However, the Constable said he remained supportive of Route 1 allowing assisted dying for the terminally ill, which aligned with his original hustings commitment rooted in reasoning like: "We have wonderful companions in life - dogs, cats, horses - that we actually don't allow to suffer in their final few days...why is the human species the only ones that have to suffer in our final moments?"
He continued: "I'm a man of a certain age, whose parents, uncles and aunts are all in their 80s and 90s. And so I've had a great deal, unfortunately, of experience of it recently."
The Constable's speech highlighted how personal experiences carry significant weight for some members in establishing their nuanced stance on the complex ethical issue.
Constable Richard Honeycombe voiced grave concerns over the proposed assisted dying law's potential to devalue human life and leave vulnerable groups open to coercion in a speech to the States Assembly.
Quoting correspondence with his constituents, Constable Honeycombe highlighted the reform's perceived conflict with Jersey's duty under human rights laws to protect the fundamental "right to life."
"The rights of life is so fundamental. It's the very first right protected by the Human Rights Jersey law 2000," Constable Honeycombe read from the email.
"Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one should be deprived of this life intentionally."
The Constable warned that sanctioning voluntary euthanasia "contradicts this fundamental responsibility" and represents a "slippery slope that could lead to devaluation of human life".
He said: "There is significant risk that devaluation of life in the elderly, disabled and vulnerable populations...they may be existing victims of discrimination, domestic abuse, and could be coerced or manipulated into choosing death."
Constable Honeycombe suggested these groups may feel pressure to opt for assisted dying out of a perceived "duty to die, particularly in situations where they may feel like a burden on their families or society."
"Coercion is a form of duress that would negate an individual's ability to give valid consent," he cautioned.
While praising the overall quality of the Assembly's debate, including an "excellent" speech by the Dean, Constable Honeycombe's remarks highlighted one of the primary concerns raised by opponents – the law's potential for insidious coercive impact on already marginalised communities.
In her speech, Deputy Karen Wilson highlighted concerns about Jersey's current governance and oversight capabilities to properly safeguard and deliver the proposed assisted dying law, particularly the more expansive "Route 2" option.
While backing Route 1 for the terminally ill on "ethical, compassionate and legal grounds", the former Health Minister questioned if the island is truly ready for such significant healthcare legislation.
"From my perspective, I believe the safeguards for Route 1 can be upheld," Deputy Wilson said. "But the overarching governance framework does not, in my view, provide the appropriate safeguards in which to deliver an assisted dying service for Route 2."
The deputy, who was involved in developing the proposals, aimed to provide "confidence and assurance" that the proposed model avoids "any undue influence or bias" so far.
However, she raised doubts about Jersey's ability to prevent potential abuse or unintended consequences under Route 2's more subjective "unbearable suffering" criteria.
"The proposals have not yet reached a level of maturity in terms of what is needed to ensure the state does no harm," Wilson cautioned regarding Route 2.
She also questioned if the propositions adequately addressed issues like suicide contagion, citing concerns that "by promoting assisted dying as a service, it will have consequences" including potentially higher suicide rates.
Deputy Wilson highlighted 2021 comments expressing "strong reservations about the processes, systems and safeguards" for such a law, questioning "whether Jersey is able to deliver these in a wholly appropriate and incorruptible manner."
Deputy Wilson ultimately concluded more robust governance was needed before expanding assisted dying access beyond the terminally ill.
Summing up before the vote, Deputy Tom Binet expressed gratitude for the respectful debate on the assisted dying proposition.
He thanked healthcare professionals, community members, and policymakers for their contributions, emphasising the importance of democratic engagement.
Deputy Binet also acknowledged the efforts of two senior policy officers who worked on the proposition for nearly three years, describing their framework as a "world-class assisted dying service."
Deputy Binet highlighted the diverse views presented during the debate but refrained from commenting on individual opinions.
He assured members that constructive suggestions would be incorporated into the ongoing process if the vote favoured the proposition.
He pledged to maintain the quality of the approach taken thus far, contingent on the assembly's continued support.
Addressing concerns about funding and the potential impact on palliative care, Deputy Binet acknowledged the financial challenges facing the health service. He assured members that health funding would be addressed comprehensively in a future assembly session, with a focus on increased short-term funding and long-term solutions.
The Health Minister dismissed fears that the assisted dying service would degrade palliative care, arguing that both services are crucial and must coexist.
Concluding his speech, Deputy Binet reiterated the robust safeguards of the proposed assisted dying service, which would ensure its integrity and prevent misuse.
He left the Assembly with a poignant question posed by the Dean: "In what sort of society do we want to live?"
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.