I was walking around East Devon recently when I saw an older gentleman tending to his garden.

He decided to strike up a conversation. He explained that the garden was his wife’s pride and joy.

She was now in a local care home. At this point, I could see that he wanted to cry. He went on to explain why he felt so emotional. His dear wife, the love of his life, is terminally ill, has no quality of life and lives in constant pain.

She cannot leave her bed. He visits her every day, and every single day she tells him that she does not want to be here anymore. It was clearly breaking his heart.

As a country, for too long we have ducked having a serious and constructive debate about having the best possible law for our dying people. It is an intensely emotive subject, of course, when having to discuss terminal illness.

Last week, Parliament did debate the subject of assisted dying, after a petition backed by journalist and campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen gained 200,000 signatures. 581 people signed the petition in East Devon.

I spoke in the debate to set out my view. Personally, I want there to be a choice. There are terminally ill people in constant pain who are living against their wishes.

Currently, the blanket ban on assisted dying forces people to suffer against their wishes. The only legal solution involves going abroad at enormous expense, which is out of reach for most people. As I said in my speech, dignity in dying should not be available just to the privileged few.

It is worth emphasising that assisted dying does not replace palliative care and end of life care services.

Someone approaching the end of their life or living with serious illness should be provided the care and treatment they need to maximise their quality of life and minimise any suffering or distress.

It’s one of the reasons why I’ve launched a campaign for fair funding for Hospices in Devon – because NHS Devon Integrated Care Board (ICB) continues to short-change these important charities.

In my view, assisted dying should be an additional choice that terminally ill, mentally competent adults with six months or less to live should be able to make because they want more control over the manner and timing of their death. Suffering should not be inevitable.

Jersey, one of the Channel Islands, has approved the principle of assisted dying.

As the island continues to work towards introducing the law, involving public consultations and considerable work on appropriate safeguards, we should look to their example.

If there were to be a vote in our Westminster Parliament on assisted dying, the government has said it would be a ‘free vote’ where MPs can vote according to their own personal conscience, irrespective of a position from their political party.

In the debate last week, MPs spoke emotively and passionately on the subject. I heard arguments against assisted dying, all of which were defensible arguments: that alternative treatments such as palliative care and hospices are available; and that there could be a slippery slope if assisted dying is extended to people with non-terminal illnesses. I couldn’t support the latter, as I firmly believe it should only be an option for the terminally ill.

I also respect that some religious groups also oppose assisted dying.

There are valid arguments on both sides of this debate. When I was younger, I was against the principle of assisted dying. But I now recognise that the status quo is a cruel reality for some.

The gentleman tending his garden looked me square in the eye when we finished talking and asked me if I supported assisted dying. The look of relief when I said yes was palpable. We shared an emotional moment together, and I will never forget that conversation.