On Friday, MPs voted in favour of assisted dying, almost seven months after this bill was first discussed—but more than a decade since similar legislation was first introduced to Parliament.

Since November, there have been four days of debate in the chamber, along with dozens of sittings of the Bill Committee. In addition, MPs have had the opportunity to hear from terminally ill people and their families, charities, campaign groups, and professional organisations representing a full spectrum of views.

When the vote was announced, there was a hush in the chamber. The result was not met with celebration, but with a dignified silence—as MPs took in the gravity of the decision we had made.

To date, this is the most important vote I have taken as an MP. It may yet prove to be a generation-defining moment. I am humbled to have played a part in this debate: to help restore dignity to those at the end of life, to shorten suffering, and to return decision-making to the hands of dying individuals.

I have been deeply moved by the number of people who reached out over the past months—those who shared personal stories of suffering, as well as those who raised concerns about the principle or the detail of the bill.

I want to thank everyone who wrote to me, spoke to me at events, or stopped me in the street. Whatever your view, I want you to know it was considered with care.

The responsibility of voting for this bill weighed heavily on me. I cast my vote at each stage with the knowledge that, while there was overall agreement that the time is right for this legislation, there remains a significant group of people in Mid Dorset and North Poole who strongly disagree with my decision and may never support it.

I want you to know that I respect your view, even though I reached a different conclusion.

For those who have specific concerns, I believe the bill includes strong safeguards. These are designed to ensure that people with mental health conditions or disabilities are protected; that access is limited only to those who meet strict qualifying criteria; that the process involves robust oversight; and that professional input—from doctors, psychiatrists, lawyers, and social workers—is comprehensive and thorough.

For those worried about coercion, I am confident that the professionals responsible for verifying requests will be trained to identify complex family dynamics and the risks they may pose to vulnerable individuals.

This debate was about choice at the end of life—but it was not a choice between assisted dying and palliative care. Everyone should have the right to high-quality palliative care. For most, this will provide the pain relief and support they need in their final months. But for others—no matter how much relief is available or how many hospices exist—dying will still be unbearably difficult. For those individuals, there may come a time when enough is enough.

We also know that palliative care is not equally accessible across the country or across society—and that must change. I believe this debate and our decision to support this bill will spark vital conversations about what we want at the end of our lives. It will encourage us to demand better care for the dying and ensure that government takes the provision of palliative care seriously.

Doing nothing was not an option. Too many people die in distress, too many take their own lives out of fear before illness robs them of autonomy, and too many travel abroad alone—to spare their families legal risk—just to avoid a prolonged and painful end.

Whatever your view—whether you’ve written to share relief or disappointment, or simply followed the debate from a distance—I want you to know that this decision was not taken lightly. It was grounded in my belief that the right to decide how we die must lie with us, as individuals, when we have reached the point where we can endure no more.