Jonathan Dimbleby has urged MPs to “get off the fence” on the issue of assisted dying and said public opinion is “overwhelmingly in favour of change”. After his younger brother, Nicholas, died with debilitating motor neurone disease earlier this year, Dimbleby said the current law was “anachronistically cruel”. Speaking outside parliament on Monday as MPs began a three-hour debate on the law, he said politicians must “get off the fence, don’t sit on your hands, have a proper full debate about all the implications, and at the end of that I am sure they will introduce legislation”. The debate, which did not include a vote, was held after more than 200,000 people backed a petition calling on the government to change the law. The issue was last voted on in the Commons in 2015, when a motion on legalisation was defeated at second reading stage by 330 votes to 118. Since then there has been a significant shift in opinion among MPs, and many of those speaking in Monday’s debate favoured change while stressing the need for stringent safeguards. Opinion polls have shown 75% of the public back legalisation on assisted dying. Several MPs said assisted dying for terminally ill people was already available to those who had financial means. The Dignitas clinic in Zurich offers assisted dying to non-Swiss residents at a cost of about £15,000. Many described extreme pain experienced in the last days of their relatives’ lives and those of constituents and their family members. The Conservative MP David Davis recalled his mother’s “miserable” death from brain and lung cancer, in contrast to a constituent’s father who had a “beautiful death” at Dignitas. He said: “I have come to the conclusion that as long as extremely strict controls are put in place, so that no one feels pressurised to end their life, I am supportive of the legalisation of assisted dying.” The Labour MP Rachel Hopkins said: “Only those with financial means have access to choice.” She said dying people were being forced to take “horrible, lonely decisions” because there was no legal option. Opening the debate, Labour’s Tonia Antoniazzi said: “Whatever our own views, we must recognise that public opinion on assisted dying has shifted in one direction.” She said membership of Dignitas held by UK citizens increased by 23% in 2023. Labour’s Rachael Maskell said her concern lay with those who may feel put under pressure to choose assisted dying. “I’m worried about the person who says ‘I’m just getting in the way, my children themselves will have a better future without me, perhaps those savings I have put aside could be better spent by them than on me’.” The former Conservative minister Kit Malthouse said the public did not recognise a picture painted by those opposed to assisted dying, of a country “teeming with granny-killers, all of us waiting just to bump off a wealthy relative so we can pocket the cash … The vast majority of the British people love their parents, love their grandparents, they want the best for them.” Another former minister, Thérèse Coffey, said she would not support changing the law. “No one should feel such a burden on their family, their friends and society that they should end their lives early.” Several MPs said the issue is of such importance that the government should propose legislation, rather than leaving the matter to a private member’s bill. A government bill would have proper scrutiny through committee stages, they said. The petition that triggered the debate was backed by Esther Rantzen, who reignited debate on assisted dying when she disclosed in December that she was considering travelling to Dignitas in Zurich in the face of a stage 4 lung cancer diagnosis. Rantzen was unable to attend the rally and debate due to health issues, but said: “I know palliative care can be wonderful in this country, but it cannot guarantee the dignified, pain-free death we terminally ill patients all hope for. The current law means my family could be prosecuted for supporting me if I go to Switzerland. This is not right, it is not ethical, and as it is my life, I, like the majority of the public, believe it should be my choice.” Outside parliament, Rabbi Jonathan Romain, the chair of Dignity in Dying, said religion had no place in the debate. “When we see somebody fall to the ground, thrashing around, we don’t say ‘oh that’s God’s will’ and step over them. We rush to get a defibrillator … It’s not about shortening life, it’s about shortening death.” Gordon Macdonald, the chief executive of Care Not Killing, said the debate was a missed opportunity to talk about fixing the UK’s palliative and social care system. “Instead of discussing this dangerous and ideological policy, we should be talking about how to fix the UK’s broken and patchy palliative care system so everyone can have a dignified death,” he said. Before the debate, the thinktank Centre released a paper addressing two main concerns around the legalisation of assisted dying: that a law may be open to abuse, and that it may lead to reduced funding for an already under-resourced palliative care system. Its report, The Case for Dignity, looked at data from the US states of Oregon, California and Washington and the Australian states of Victoria and Western Australia. It concluded that there had been “no reported instances of abuse and no evidence of undue coercion or a ‘slippery slope’ effect targeting specific groups” since laws were introduced. The study found “strong structures in place during the process itself, such as rigorous eligibility assessments, the ability for participants to withdraw and reapply at any stage, and strong oversight mechanisms, to prevent the harm of vulnerable groups and ensure patient autonomy”. It also found that governments “generally increased funding for palliative care following the introduction of assisted death legislation”. Assisted dying legislation led to “increased awareness of the importance of offering patients a variety of choices to best suit their personal preferences and give them the most dignity in death,” it said. Torrin Wilkins, the thinktank’s director, said: “Assisted dying laws such as these are safe and they put choice and compassion at the heart of the system.”