UK Parliament approves assisted dying bill: How would it work?
The British parliament has narrowly voted in favour of a bill to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill people, marking a landmark moment of social reform in the country's history.
The legislation passed by a vote of 314-291 in the House of Commons on Friday, clearing its biggest parliamentary hurdle, and will now undergo months of scrutiny in the House of Lords, Britain's upper chamber.
The process could result in further amendments when it goes to the Lords, but the upper house is usually reluctant to block legislation that has been passed by elected members of parliament in the Commons.
Friday's vote came after many hours of emotional debate, including references to personal stories, in the chamber. It followed a vote in November that approved the legislation in principle.
Prior to that, the House of Commons voted on the issue in 2015, when it rejected legalising assisted dying.
What is in the assisted dying bill?
The 'Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life)' Bill gives mentally competent, terminally ill adults in England and Wales, who have six months or less left to live, the right to choose to end their lives with medical assistance.
Patients will have to be capable of taking fatal drugs by themselves after receiving a green light from doctors and a panel including a social worker, a senior legal figure and a psychiatrist.
Assisted suicide is different from euthanasia, where a healthcare practitioner or other person administers a lethal injection at a patient's request.
Under current legislation, someone who helps a terminally ill person end their life can face a police investigation, prosecution and a prison sentence of up to 14 years.
Changes to the original draft of the new bill were made to include the appointment of independent advocates to support people with learning disabilities, autism or mental health conditions and the creation of a disability advisory board.
Logistics still need to be thrashed out, including whether the practice or any services supporting it would be integrated into the National Health Service (NHS) or would operate as a separate unit made available through third parties.
The bill will not apply in Northern Ireland or Scotland, which is holding its own vote on the issue.
What are the arguments for assisted dying?
Supporters of the bill say it will ensure dignity and compassion for people with a terminal diagnosis, who must be given a choice over whether or not to relieve their suffering.
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who introduced the bill, told The Guardian newspaper that terminally ill people should be given rights over their bodies similar to those that allow a woman to choose an abortion.
'As much as I will fight for the rights of disabled people to be treated better by society, I will also fight for the rights of dying people,' she said.
Some advocates for the bill also argue that current legislation discriminates against the poor, who face possible prosecution for helping their loved ones die, while the wealthy can travel abroad to legally access the services.
Conservative MP Peter Bedford spoke against this perceived inequality. 'At least one Brit every week is taking the stressful and often lonely journey to Switzerland for an assisted death, at the cost of £12,000 ($16,100),' he said. 'This bill isn't about shortening life, it is about shortening death.'
Labour MP Maureen Burke spoke about her brother David, who suffered from pancreatic cancer. 'He could never have known that I would ever have the opportunity to stand in this place and ask colleagues to make sure that others don't go through what he went through,' she said. 'I've done right by my brother by speaking here today.'
Opinion polls show that a majority of United Kingdom citizens back assisted dying. Sarah Wootton, chief executive of the UK-based Dignity in Dying campaign, said the vote sent 'a clear message' and that 'parliament stands with the public and change is coming'.
While there is no timetable for the implementation of the bill, under the terms of the legislation, it must begin within four years of the law being passed.
What do opponents say?
Opponents worry that vulnerable people could be coerced into ending their lives or feel pressured to do so for fear of becoming a burden to their families and society.
Protesters who rallied outside parliament as the vote was taking place on Friday held up banners urging politicians not to make the state-run health service, the NHS, the 'National Suicide Service'.
Several MPs withdrew their support for the bill after the initial vote last year, saying safeguards had been weakened. One of the most important changes to the bill from last November was the dropping of the requirement that a judge sign off on any decision. The latest vote passed by a majority of 23, a narrowing of support from the 55 majority (330 votes to 275) in November.
Care Not Killing, a group that opposes the law change, called the bill 'deeply flawed and dangerous' and argued that politicians had not been given enough time to consider its implications.
'Members of Parliament had under 10 hours to consider over 130 amendments to the bill, or less than five minutes per change. Does anyone think this is enough time to consider changes to a draft law that quite literally is a matter of life and death?' said the group's CEO, Gordon Macdonald.
Opponents also raised concerns about the impact of assisted dying on the finances of the state-run NHS, whether it could allow it to sidetrack requests to fund improvements to palliative care and how it might change the relationship between doctors and their patients.
Outright opponents of the legislation include Tanni Grey-Thompson, a disabled MP and Paralympic medallist. In an interview with Sky News, she said nobody needs to die a 'terrible death' if they have access to specialist palliative care.
'I'm really worried that disabled people, because of the cost of health and social care, because that's being removed, that choice is then taken away, so the only choice they have is to end their lives,' she said.
Where else is assisted dying legal?
Assisted dying laws have been introduced in several countries. About 300 million people around the world have legal access to this option, according to Dignity in Dying.
In March, the Isle of Man became the first place in the British Isles to pass an assisted dying bill, allowing terminally ill adults with a prognosis of 12 months or less to choose to end their lives.
Switzerland legalised assisted dying in 1942, making it the first country in the world to permit the practice on the condition that the motive is not selfish.
In Europe, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal and Austria have some form of legalised assisted dying.
In the United States, the practice is known as 'physician-assisted dying' and is legal in 10 states, while in Australia, it has been legal in every state since 2022.
In Latin America, Colombia legalised euthanasia for terminally ill adult patients in 2014, while Ecuador opted to decriminalise euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2024.
Canada has one of the most liberal systems of assisted dying in the world. It introduced MAID, or Medical Assistance in Dying, in 2016 for terminally ill adults. In 2021, the requirement of suffering from a terminal illness was removed and it is now debating opening the scheme to people who suffer from a mental illness as well.
Which other countries are considering legalising it?
A bill on assisted dying is being considered in Scotland. It passed an initial vote in May, but it will now need two more rounds of parliamentary scrutiny before it can become law.
French President Emmanuel Macron has backed a bill allowing some people in the last stages of a terminal illness to access assisted dying. That was approved by the National Assembly in May and will now go to the Senate before a second reading in the lower house.
According to Death with Dignity, 17 US states are considering assisted dying bills this year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
Can divided European powers help end Israel's war on Iran?
The three largest European nations by population, Germany, France and the UK, held talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Geneva, Switzerland, on Friday, in an effort to avert a protracted war in the Middle East. US President Donald Trump, who has said he will decide within two weeks whether to join the assault on Tehran, denounced the talks with European leaders as a failure. 'Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this one,' he told reporters. Araghchi had said Iran was not attending the talks in Geneva to negotiate anyway, only to listen. However, he added, 'There is no room for negotiations with the US [either] until the Israeli aggression stops,' as Iran and Israel traded salvoes of missiles and drones. The US has been Israel's chief ally and supporter in all its wars, and is the only country with major military assets deployed in the region, which might be able to alter the course of the war. Why are the Europeans getting involved? Germany, France and the UK – referred to as the E3 in the context of Iran talks – helped negotiate a 2015 treaty with Iran. The 2015 treaty, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), saw Iran agree to develop only peaceful nuclear programmes and to submit to independent monitoring. Russia, China and the United States also helped negotiate it, as did the UN. But Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA in May 2018, during his first term as president. The E3 tried to keep the treaty alive but failed. Iran abandoned it a year after the US did. On Saturday, the EU high commissioner for external action, Kaja Kallas, who also attended the talks on Friday, issued a statement reaffirming 'commitment to Israel's security' and 'longstanding concerns about Iran's expansion of its nuclear programme, which has no credible civilian purpose, in violation of almost all the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) provisions'. But Israel's war in Gaza has divided the E3 over their approach to Israel, weakening European foreign policy unity further, although all want to avoid another war on Europe's doorstep. How are the E3 divided in their approach towards Israel? The E3 positions on Israel have diverged since Israel's war in Gaza began in October 2023. Germany has remained the most ardently pro-Israel, refusing to criticise Israel for indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Gaza and halting its funding to UNWRA, the UN agency assisting Palestinian refugees, which Israel accuses of aiding Hamas. Originally pro-Israel, the UK somewhat changed its stance after Labour's election victory last year. Earlier this month, the UK joined four other countries in formally sanctioning Israel's far-right national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, for 'incitement of violence' against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Israel called the decision 'outrageous' and 'unacceptable'. France is even more sceptical towards Israel. It was one of four EU members that started calling for a Gaza ceasefire in April last year. A year later, on April 9, French President Emmanuel Macron said he would formally recognise the state of Palestine within months, partly because 'at some point, it will be right', and partly to encourage Arab states to recognise Israel. France was reported to be lobbying other European nations to follow suit. Spain, Norway and Ireland all formally recognised Palestine the following month. What leverage do the E3 have with Iran or Israel? They are the three biggest economies in Europe, with a collective gross domestic product (GDP) of about $11 trillion. Two of them, France and the UK, possess aircraft carriers and expeditionary forces that have deployed to the Middle East and North Africa regions. They are also nuclear powers. Ultimately, though, none of these things is enough to sway either Iran or Israel on matters of national security. The true value of the E3 lies in their 'acceptability' to both Iran and Israel as good-faith mediators and their ability to work towards common goals with the US. 'Germany, France and the UK have attempted to mediate for more than 20 years, and their approach has been milder than that of the US,' George Tzogopoulos, a lecturer in international relations at the European Institute in Nice, told Al Jazeera. 'The same is happening now. We have a war crisis, and these three prioritise diplomacy for the conflict to stop if possible and for negotiations to restart.' Could the E3 broker a deal between Iran and Israel? It would be difficult, given their failure to resuscitate the JCPOA without the US. 'The main reason [the E3 failed with the JCPOA] is the conclusion, made by both the Trump administration, President Trump himself, and the Israeli government that diplomacy cannot work in the case of Iran and, therefore, the role of the three was sidelined,' said Tzogopoulos. But it is also difficult for them to coordinate with the US. Trump has now sidelined his own intelligence community to adopt the Israeli view that Iran is developing a bomb. On Friday, Trump told reporters that his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was 'wrong' when she testified that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had not re-authorised the country's suspended nuclear weapons programme. 'If Israel has evidence that Iran was dashing for a bomb, I think it needs to come out more publicly and share that, because nobody else is confirming that assessment,' said Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, a nongovernmental organisation based in the US. 'If there is some coordination between the US and the E3, we might be more optimistic, but for Europe, for the E3 to act autonomously, I wouldn't bet my money on their potential success,' he said. 'The Europeans have very low chances,' agreed Angelos Syrigos, a professor of international law at Panteion University in Athens. 'The only people who can intervene seriously are the Americans. But I don't know if the Iranians are open to that. To have final peace, you usually need a decisive defeat,' he said, referring to the Yom Kippur War between Israel and Egypt of 1973, which led to the Camp David agreement six years later, and US intervention in the Yugoslav War, which led to the Dayton Accord in 1995. 'One party has to understand there is no military solution.' Could the United Nations Security Council find a diplomatic solution? No, say experts, because China, Russia and the US disagree on Israel and Iran. 'The Security Council won't find a solution to this,' said Syrigos. 'Either the US or Russia or China will veto it. The difference is mainly between the US and China. The Chinese have invested a lot in Iran in recent years. That's where they buy most of their oil; they send [Iran] materials for nuclear weapons. It's China that is mostly connected to Iran.' Russia has called on the US not to attack Iran, because of the risk of destabilising the region. But Russia also does not have the power to come to Iran's aid, said Syrigos. 'Right now, Russia is going along with the US. It doesn't want to get involved. It hasn't the power. So, it's turning a necessity into a voluntary act,' he said. 'The logic of war will guide diplomatic efforts at this point, and we cannot know how the war will go, or the extent of the damage to Iran's nuclear programme,' said Tzogopoulos.
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
UK Parliament approves assisted dying bill: How would it work?
The British parliament has narrowly voted in favour of a bill to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill people, marking a landmark moment of social reform in the country's history. The legislation passed by a vote of 314-291 in the House of Commons on Friday, clearing its biggest parliamentary hurdle, and will now undergo months of scrutiny in the House of Lords, Britain's upper chamber. The process could result in further amendments when it goes to the Lords, but the upper house is usually reluctant to block legislation that has been passed by elected members of parliament in the Commons. Friday's vote came after many hours of emotional debate, including references to personal stories, in the chamber. It followed a vote in November that approved the legislation in principle. Prior to that, the House of Commons voted on the issue in 2015, when it rejected legalising assisted dying. What is in the assisted dying bill? The 'Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life)' Bill gives mentally competent, terminally ill adults in England and Wales, who have six months or less left to live, the right to choose to end their lives with medical assistance. Patients will have to be capable of taking fatal drugs by themselves after receiving a green light from doctors and a panel including a social worker, a senior legal figure and a psychiatrist. Assisted suicide is different from euthanasia, where a healthcare practitioner or other person administers a lethal injection at a patient's request. Under current legislation, someone who helps a terminally ill person end their life can face a police investigation, prosecution and a prison sentence of up to 14 years. Changes to the original draft of the new bill were made to include the appointment of independent advocates to support people with learning disabilities, autism or mental health conditions and the creation of a disability advisory board. Logistics still need to be thrashed out, including whether the practice or any services supporting it would be integrated into the National Health Service (NHS) or would operate as a separate unit made available through third parties. The bill will not apply in Northern Ireland or Scotland, which is holding its own vote on the issue. What are the arguments for assisted dying? Supporters of the bill say it will ensure dignity and compassion for people with a terminal diagnosis, who must be given a choice over whether or not to relieve their suffering. Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who introduced the bill, told The Guardian newspaper that terminally ill people should be given rights over their bodies similar to those that allow a woman to choose an abortion. 'As much as I will fight for the rights of disabled people to be treated better by society, I will also fight for the rights of dying people,' she said. Some advocates for the bill also argue that current legislation discriminates against the poor, who face possible prosecution for helping their loved ones die, while the wealthy can travel abroad to legally access the services. Conservative MP Peter Bedford spoke against this perceived inequality. 'At least one Brit every week is taking the stressful and often lonely journey to Switzerland for an assisted death, at the cost of £12,000 ($16,100),' he said. 'This bill isn't about shortening life, it is about shortening death.' Labour MP Maureen Burke spoke about her brother David, who suffered from pancreatic cancer. 'He could never have known that I would ever have the opportunity to stand in this place and ask colleagues to make sure that others don't go through what he went through,' she said. 'I've done right by my brother by speaking here today.' Opinion polls show that a majority of United Kingdom citizens back assisted dying. Sarah Wootton, chief executive of the UK-based Dignity in Dying campaign, said the vote sent 'a clear message' and that 'parliament stands with the public and change is coming'. While there is no timetable for the implementation of the bill, under the terms of the legislation, it must begin within four years of the law being passed. What do opponents say? Opponents worry that vulnerable people could be coerced into ending their lives or feel pressured to do so for fear of becoming a burden to their families and society. Protesters who rallied outside parliament as the vote was taking place on Friday held up banners urging politicians not to make the state-run health service, the NHS, the 'National Suicide Service'. Several MPs withdrew their support for the bill after the initial vote last year, saying safeguards had been weakened. One of the most important changes to the bill from last November was the dropping of the requirement that a judge sign off on any decision. The latest vote passed by a majority of 23, a narrowing of support from the 55 majority (330 votes to 275) in November. Care Not Killing, a group that opposes the law change, called the bill 'deeply flawed and dangerous' and argued that politicians had not been given enough time to consider its implications. 'Members of Parliament had under 10 hours to consider over 130 amendments to the bill, or less than five minutes per change. Does anyone think this is enough time to consider changes to a draft law that quite literally is a matter of life and death?' said the group's CEO, Gordon Macdonald. Opponents also raised concerns about the impact of assisted dying on the finances of the state-run NHS, whether it could allow it to sidetrack requests to fund improvements to palliative care and how it might change the relationship between doctors and their patients. Outright opponents of the legislation include Tanni Grey-Thompson, a disabled MP and Paralympic medallist. In an interview with Sky News, she said nobody needs to die a 'terrible death' if they have access to specialist palliative care. 'I'm really worried that disabled people, because of the cost of health and social care, because that's being removed, that choice is then taken away, so the only choice they have is to end their lives,' she said. Where else is assisted dying legal? Assisted dying laws have been introduced in several countries. About 300 million people around the world have legal access to this option, according to Dignity in Dying. In March, the Isle of Man became the first place in the British Isles to pass an assisted dying bill, allowing terminally ill adults with a prognosis of 12 months or less to choose to end their lives. Switzerland legalised assisted dying in 1942, making it the first country in the world to permit the practice on the condition that the motive is not selfish. In Europe, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal and Austria have some form of legalised assisted dying. In the United States, the practice is known as 'physician-assisted dying' and is legal in 10 states, while in Australia, it has been legal in every state since 2022. In Latin America, Colombia legalised euthanasia for terminally ill adult patients in 2014, while Ecuador opted to decriminalise euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2024. Canada has one of the most liberal systems of assisted dying in the world. It introduced MAID, or Medical Assistance in Dying, in 2016 for terminally ill adults. In 2021, the requirement of suffering from a terminal illness was removed and it is now debating opening the scheme to people who suffer from a mental illness as well. Which other countries are considering legalising it? A bill on assisted dying is being considered in Scotland. It passed an initial vote in May, but it will now need two more rounds of parliamentary scrutiny before it can become law. French President Emmanuel Macron has backed a bill allowing some people in the last stages of a terminal illness to access assisted dying. That was approved by the National Assembly in May and will now go to the Senate before a second reading in the lower house. According to Death with Dignity, 17 US states are considering assisted dying bills this year.
Al Jazeera
2 days ago
- Al Jazeera
British parliament votes in favour of assisted dying law
The terminally ill adults end of life legislation passed by a vote of 314-291, clearing its biggest parliamentary hurdle. The United Kingdom's parliament has voted in favour of a bill to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill people, paving the way for the country's biggest social change in a generation. On Friday, 314 members of parliament voted in favour and 291 against the bill in the House of Commons, the UK's lower chamber of parliament. The bill will go on to Parliament's upper chamber, the House of Lords, where it will undergo months of scrutiny, but while there could be changes to the bill, the Lords will be hesitant to block a bill that has been passed in the Commons. The 'Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life)' law would give mentally competent, terminally ill adults in England and Wales with six months or less left to live the right to choose to end their lives with medical help. Those who would want the procedure would have to be signed off on by two doctors and a panel of experts. Labour Party MP Kim Leadbeater, who proposed the bill, said changing the law would 'offer a compassionate and safe choice' for terminally ill people. The vote took place 10 years after parliament last voted against allowing assisted dying. In November, the previous vote on the assisted dying bill was 330 to 275 in favour. According to a YouGov poll that surveyed 2,003 adults last month, which was published on Thursday, 73 percent of people supported changing the bill. 'Kill the bill, not the ill' Outside of Parliament on Friday, protesters both in favour and against the legislation gathered. Advertisement Those in favour of the bill held placards that said 'my life, my death'. Sign up for Al Jazeera Breaking News Alert Get real-time breaking news alerts and stay up-to-date with the most important headlines from around the globe. Subscribe Your subscription failed. Please try again. Please check your email to confirm your subscription By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy protected by reCAPTCHA David Walker, 82, told the AFP news agency outside of Parliament that he supported the bill because he saw his wife suffer for three years at the end of her life. 'That's why I'm here, because I can't help her anymore, but I can help other people who are going through the same thing, because if you have no quality of life, you have nothing,' he said. On the other side of the coin, those who rejected the bill held placards that said, 'Let's care, not kill' and 'kill the bill, not the ill'. Elizabeth Burden, a 52-year-old doctor, said she feared the bill could open 'a floodgate' of people being forced to end their lives. 'It is a slippery slope. Once we allow this. Everything will slip down because dementia patients, all patients … are vulnerable,' she told AFP. If approved by the Lords, the UK will follow Australia, Canada and some United States states that allow for assisted dying.
