A bid for the Welsh parliament to support assisted dying has been rejected in the Senedd.
A cross-party motion submitted by Labour’s Julie Morgan calling for those who are “intolerably suffering” and have a clear wish to die to be able to be assisted by medical professionals was rejected on Wednesday evening.
The Senedd cannot change the law itself, with ultimate power resting at Westminster.
The motion would have offered support in principle should Westminster implement “compassionate assisted dying”.
A Bill that would give terminally ill people the right to end their lives was introduced to the UK Parliament earlier this month.
The motion saw passionate debate with support and opposition on all political sides of the Siambr (debating chamber).
James Evans, Conservative MS for Brecon and Radnorshire, was visibly emotional as he spoke in support of the motion.
He told the Senedd he had made a promise to his grandparents that he would not let anyone suffer in the way his grandmother did.
Mr Evans said his grandfather was threatened with prosecution for manslaughter if he refused to let his wife – who had dementia and suffered a stroke – be given a feeding tube to keep her alive.
He said: “My nan had a really bad stroke, it left her incapacitated.
“She couldn’t talk, couldn’t open her eyes, but she was still alive. She had no life or quality of life.”
He said his grandfather wanted to let her “end her life naturally” as they had discussed.
“The hospital came to my grandfather and said, ‘If you do this, we’re going to have you done for manslaughter’,” he said.
“My grandfather regretted that decision that he had to make then to extend my nan’s life for the rest of his days.”
Joel James, Conservative member for South Wales Central, suggested the move could lead to a “slippery slope”, fearing the legislation in the Commons could be broadened in the future to include the elderly and the disabled.
Delyth Jewell, Plaid Cymru member for South Wales East, said: “My fear with this motion — well, my terror, really — is not so much with how it will begin as with how it will end.
“There are safeguards in what is being proposed in Westminster but every precedent we see internationally shows that no safeguard is sacrosanct.”
Members of the public in the gallery above the Siambr muttered in disagreement, with one woman saying Ms Jewell should “shut up”.
The motion was rejected with 19 in favour, nine abstentions and 26 against.
Speaking to the PA news agency before the debate, Ms Morgan, MS for Cardiff North, said: “The law as it stands is very inhumane, I think it doesn’t work.
“I believe we should have a much more humane law which takes into account people’s circumstances and the suffering that they may be experiencing.
“It’s very important that we discuss it here in the Senedd today because although the private member’s bill is going forwards in Westminster, if it were passed the implication would be very important in Wales because we have responsibility for health and social care.”
Ms Morgan said it is important to have safeguards to ensure people meet specific criteria, with medical people present when the decision is made.
Opposing groups held protests outside the Senedd before the debate.
Christian Concern set up tombstones on the steps of the parliament bearing statistics from other countries where euthanasia has been legalised.
They were greeted by chanting from My Death, My Decision, who called for their right to choose when to die.
Carys Moseley, a public policy researcher and analyst for Christian Concern based in Cardiff, said the group was “concerned” about the motion.
She said: “We’ve got a visual display of the actual cases that have been happening in different jurisdictions in the western world.
“These are tragic cases – diabetes being treated as a long-term illness in Oregon, assisted suicide the fifth leading cause of death in Canada – these are very grave issues.”
She said the public question the issue more when they hear about other countries.
“Once you introduce this choice – dying – there is a pressure then which eventually becomes a duty to die,” she said.
“There isn’t such a thing as (going on) ‘your own terms’, because it affects all the doctors that become responsible for killing patients or assisted killing rather than preserving life.
“It’s not about the individual, it’s about healthcare in general and the policy for everybody.”
Gemma Williams, a member of My Death, My Decision, wanted to be able to choose for herself when “enough is enough”.
The 46-year-old, from Carmarthenshire, who has multiple sclerosis, said: “The turning point for me was my grandmother.
“She was 99, she was bed-bound, and it was just awful, and she used to cry and beg for it to end, and she said that ‘there’s no dignity in this, when will it be over?’
“And that’s when I thought, yeah, we should have the choice.”
Ms Williams said her MS is “remitting” but there will come a time when she will not have any period of remission.
She added: “It shouldn’t be limited to the terminally ill, it should be for those suffering intolerably.
“For myself and others with chronic illness, so we can say we’ve got no quality of life any more, we’re in too much pain, and we’d like to end it now rather than being forced to live in agony.
“I’m not saying everybody must go and have an assisted death, I’m saying we should have the right to choose for ourselves.”
Ms Williams said she has not seen evidence the system is being abused elsewhere, and friends who have been through assisted dying in the Netherlands and elsewhere had much “kinder” deaths.
Karen Harries, also a member of My Death, My Decision, echoed Ms Williams’ calls.
Ms Harries, 60, from Carmarthenshire, has fibromyalgia, which she said left her bed-bound for long periods.
She said: “I’m not imposing my choice on them (Christian Concern), but they, by their actions, are not allowing me to have that choice.
“I think it would be good if we could actually sit down and talk because this will come, if not this year, it will come, and it’s better that we understand what their concerns are, what they’re worried about, so we can make sure the safeguards are in place.”
