I HAVE received a huge amount of correspondence from constituents and I have met with doctors, nurses, lawyers, disability rights campaigners and bereaved families to discuss the assisted dying Bill. I thank everyone. They have shown real thoughtfulness and passion, and, in most cases, been sensitive and respectful.

I voted against the Bill.

It was not a decision I took lightly. On most issues, my heart beats liberal. The power of Parliament to deny people a freedom should only be used when there is a strong justification in the public interest. However, it is also the responsibility of Parliament to defend the common good and particularly to protect the vulnerable, and sometimes that must come at the expense of individual freedom.

I came to the view that, despite earnest attempts to build legislative safeguards, the Bill failed to protect vulnerable people and would, I believe, fundamentally alter the social contract around our mutual obligations to each other in ways that are harmful both to individuals and to society.

I understand that those supporting the Bill are motivated by wanting to relieve pain and suffering, improve dignity, and respect freedom of choice for patients in end-of-life care. I share those goals. However, a Bill that prioritises prematurely terminating a person’s life over improved statutory rights and funding for palliative care is not the right way to achieve them.

Indeed, there is something inherently coercive about a doctor, a trusted authority figure, being able to recommend assisted suicide on the NHS as an option while not being able to offer decent palliative care, because it has been so underfunded.

Yet the evidence from places where assisted suicide becomes an established norm is that quality palliative care gets neglected and investment decreases.

Another form of coercion is the desire not to be a burden on one’s family. I would hope that anybody thinking this way knows better how precious they are to those who love them but, sadly, that is not always the case. The answer should always be affirmations of love, not collusion in ending life early.

A more serious form of coercion would be family members quietly encouraging someone to opt for assisted suicide. The writers of the Bill propose tough prison sentences for anybody found coercing someone to end their life. However, medical staff and lawyers warn that this can be very difficult to prove.

The Bill only offers an end of life to people with a diagnosis of having less than six months to live. It is exceedingly difficult for doctors to determine life expectancy six months from death with any accuracy, but this simply excludes many people who may want an assisted death, for example people living with chronic pain or paralysis, whose conditions are not terminal. Such people will likely challenge through the courts that they should be given the same rights as terminally ill patients. This could be followed by people living with mental health conditions arguing that their suffering should not be considered less applicable because it is mental, rather than physical.

Read more: Majority of North East MPs vote against assisted dying

Indeed, in nearly every place assisted suicide has been legalised, it has led to greater liberalisation. Some of the loudest cheerleaders for this Bill have been open about the fact they see this is a first step but would certainly want to go further.

I know there will be people – good people – who see this differently to me. I respect their views and motives. May I reassure that I have not voted for the status quo. I am dedicated to championing statutory rights and funding for palliative care.

  • This is an abridged version of the letter Bishop Auckland MP Sam Rushworth sent to his constituents