Assisted dying is one step closer to becoming law after a historic vote in the House of Commons, paving the way for one of the biggest changes to social policy since abortion was legalised in 1967.
Following an emotional debate, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was passed by 314 to 291 with a majority of just 23, in a major victory for its sponsor Kim Leadbeater.
It now goes to the House of Lords for further scrutiny where it is set to meet more opposition.
The vote came after months of impassioned debate, culminating in a tense third reading debate on Friday.
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater opened debate on her Bill’s third reading in the Commons (House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA) (PA Wire)Opening the debate, Ms Leadbeater told the Commons the assisted dying Bill “is not a choice between living and dying – it is a choice for terminally ill people about how they die”.
The Labour MP added: “I fully appreciate that there are some colleagues who would never vote for any version of this Bill due to their own fundamental beliefs – be they religious or otherwise – and I am respectful of their views, despite disagreeing, but to those colleagues who are supportive of a change in the law but are hesitant about if now is the time – if we don’t vote to change the law today – what does that mean?
“It means we will have many more years of heartbreaking stories from terminally ill people and their families, of pain and trauma, suicide attempts, PTSD, lonely trips to Switzerland, police investigations and everything else we have all heard over recent months.”
Making the opening speech for the opponents of the Bill, former minister Sir James Cleverly urged MPs not to “sub-contract” scrutiny of the Bill to peers.
Sir James told MPs: “At the second reading debate, I made the point that we need to think about the detail of this Bill and not just vote in accordance with the broad principles.”
MPs in the House of Commons are debating the assisted dying Bill ahead of a crucial vote (House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA) (PA Wire)Referring to the future passage of this Bill, if it clears the Commons, the Conservative former minister added: “We were told at second reading that a lot of the concerns, a lot of the worries, a lot of the detailed questions would be resolved through the committee process. We were promised the gold-standard, a judicially underpinned set of protections and safeguards.
“Those protections did not make it through committee.
“And I’ve also heard where people are saying, ‘well, there are problems, there are still issues, there are still concerns I have’, well, ‘the Lords will have their work to do’.
“But I don’t think it is right and none of us should think that it is right to sub-contract our job to the other place (the House of Lords).”
Labour Mother of the House Diane Abbott raised the problem of private firms will run assisted dying services for profit.
She said: “I came to this House to be a voice for the voiceless. It hasn’t always been favoured by my own leadership, but that is why I came to the House. Who could be more voiceless than somebody who is in their sickbed and believes they are dying?
“I ask members in this debate to speak up for the voiceless one more time, because there is no doubt that if this Bill is passed in its current form, people will lose their lives who do not need to, and they will be amongst the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society.”
However, speaking in favour of the Bill Dr Peter Prinsley noted that “as a young doctor I would have opposed this Bill, but as an old doctor I support it.”
He noted that the experience of suffering for patients over a long career had changed his mind.
Lib Dem MP Josh Babarinde read out a letter from a constituent whose partner died in terrible, painful circumstances.
“It could have been avoided if there had been assisted dying available,” he said.
He was challenged over the problem of coercion but insisted that the Bill had serious consequences for those who coerced others into assisted dying.
But former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith claimed the Bill had been “weakened” since the second reading in December.
He said the Bill was “fundamentally flawed and unworkable”.
