A cross-party group of MPs who are practising medics and former NHS staff have written to MPs urging them to back the assisted dying bill, after the health secretary expressed doubt that the health service was fit to enact such a big change. The six Labour and Conservative MPs, including two GPs and two surgeons, said they had extensive experience of working in and around palliative care and stressed that a tightly defined bill would give dying patients genuine choice. Most of the medic MPs are from the new intake – where there is fierce lobbying on both sides to win over more than 100 MPs who are said to be undecided. Both sides say they expect the vote to be incredibly tight, despite an initial belief that there would be majority support for the law change. Dr Simon Opher, the new Labour MP for Stroud who still works as a general practioner, told the Guardian he would only support a bill in the tight circumstances which he believes will be defined in Kim Leadbeater’s bill – which he said would not include allowing it in the case of grave suffering and only in the case of terminal illness. He said he had personally cared for at least one patient who travelled alone to Dignitas to end their life – adding that he had been begged by patients to end their suffering and felt he was unable to fulfil their genuine wishes. The bill will have its second reading on 29 November with a free vote by MPs. But the bill’s backers say that, though there was an initial surge in support for the bill – which polls suggest is backed by the majority of voters – there are a significant number of colleagues who are wavering. Many have been influenced by Streeting’s view that the health service is in such a poor state that it is too risky to implement such a change without unintended consequences. In their letter to MPs, Opher and his co-signatories said medics had for too long “been caught between the law (which forbids any assistance in hastening the end of life) and our compassionate care for patients, whom we know wish us to curtail their suffering.” The letter has also been signed by the Labour MPs Dr Peter Prinsley, a consultant surgeon, Cat Eccles, an operating department practitioner, Kevin McKenna, a former nurse, and Sadik Al-Hassan, a pharmacist, as well as the Tory MPs Dr Luke Evans, a GP, and Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst, a surgeon. “Many of us have extensive experience in palliative and terminal care and we have been aware for many years of the awful dilemma put before patients and clinicians in the last days of life,” the letter said. “This parliament has a once in a generation opportunity to bring the laws around assisted dying up to date, ensuring they are fit for purpose. We appreciate that many feel uncomfortable about the subject and understand their concerns. However, we also have a responsibility to reflect the current mood in the population, and more importantly, be brave enough to change the law in this difficult area for the benefit of patients.” Leadbeater’s bill will confine assisted dying to patients with a terminal illness with less than six months to live, who must see two doctors who have a full set of their medical records, and who must confirm that the patient has full capacity and is making the decision of their own free will. Opher and his colleagues said that the reassurance that they had control over the end of their lives was often enough to relieve the mental suffering of many patients, who ultimately did not go through with the procedure. “Many patients who sign up for assisted dying do not in the end request that their lives are curtailed. The reassurance that they have this option is enough to relieve much of the anxiety and stress as death approaches. We view assisted dying not as an alternative to good palliative care but, instead, an extra component of a holistic palliative care plan,” the letter said. Opher said he knew the decision was finely balanced for many medics and said he would not support any change that compelled doctors to take part in assisted dying decisions or where medics or social workers were able to first suggest assisted dying as an option to patients. “When I speak to colleagues who are concerned, often it is about making sure the bill is absolutely watertight, so we can guard against mission creep, that’s where we’ve got to get to,” he said. “It is a very finely balanced decision but there is a cost to doing nothing.”