Assisted dying bill: Why this momentous vote remains so uncertain

The third reading and final Commons vote on Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on Friday marks a truly historic moment for parliament.
The stakes are so high that entrepreneur Declan Ganley has offered a private ambulance to MP Sorcha Eastwood, who is ill with Covid, to get her to the Commons to vote against the Bill.
No wonder. It has been almost six decades since MPs have considered a Bill that would cause such a profound and fundamental change in the state's relationship with individuals and society's attitude to life and death.
An historic vote
In December Ms Leadbeater won a 55 majority on the second reading vote of her Bill, dealing with the principle rather than details, and is expected to carry a reduced majority today, although that is less certain than it was before.
If she is successful then the state, for the first time, will be licensed to end people's lives if they wish it and if the circumstances allow. Doctors will be allowed to offer it as an alternative to people who have been given six months left to live.
What factors will MPs be considering?
The lack of certainty on the vote is partly fueled by the fact that a number of MPs who voted for the principle made it clear that they were allowing the debate to be had and would reserve judgment on the final vote.
The debate in fact has moved on from one of principle - which only a minority oppose - to one of practicalities. The questions faced by MPs include:
Can such a law be introduced to allow those with genuine terminal illnesses who wish to end their lives to do so without exposing the weak, poor and vulnerable to coercion to end their lives?
Can the so-called tight restrictions be prevented from expanding beyond that through medical practice, judicial intervention or further legislation?
Will this end up being a means for saving costs on the care centre and the NHS?
Are the safeguards strong enough to ensure that the new law will not be abused?
What will be the impact on hospices and end of life care?
MPs changing their minds
The reason that the vote has become tighter is because a growing number of MPs are concerned about the potential answers to those questions. The only issue will be whether that is enough to block the Bill.
Based on votes on the amendments as well as known supporters and opponents, the predictive voting model used by opponents of assisted dying gives Ms Leadbeater a majority of up to 15, ranging to a defeat of the Bill by a majority of five. Very close.
Key to the debate will not be the heartbreaking stories of people suffering in their final months, or celebrity voices like Esther Rantzen. They have already had their effect.
More important will be the big change to the Bill brought by Ms Leadbeater which means a judge in court will not have to sign off, as originally laid out in the second reading vote. Instead, there will be an expert panel led by a judge or KC but not with the same legal authority.
It is worth noting that the judicial safeguard was cited by more than 100 MPs in the first debate.
The 'slippery slope' argument
The other issue at play will be whether this Bill is a full stop to the issue or is something that will unleash a loosening up of the law over time.
The lesson from the then Liberal MP David Steel's abortion legislation in 1967 will play a part in the decision-making of a number of MPs, who will be considering the so-called 'slippery slope' issue of an apparently tightly worded piece of legislation expanding its reach over time.
Just this week we have seen MPs vote by a large majority to decriminalise abortion – effectively allowing it up to birth without criminal consequences from the 24 weeks (six months) already legislated for.
But more important will be the experience of other countries where assisted dying has been legalised.
Ms Leadbeater has been at pains that this is a specifically British Bill. However, in Canada, Oregon in the US, the Netherlands, and New South Wales in Australia the legislation has expanded beyond terminal illness to include mental health and other issues.
Ms Leadbeater in fact highlighted a case of a couple who decided to end their own lives in Australia after 70 years of marriage even though terminal illness was not a factor.
How the debate will unfold
She will argue on Friday though that her Bill has been strengthened since November.
Opponents will point out that she has rejected safeguards on eating disorders, mental health, the requirement of people actually suffering pain and many other apparently reasonable checks to the process. Attempts to restrict assisted death advertising were brushed aside. An attempt to protect hospices from offering assisted dying were dismissed.
She had also opposed an amendment preventing doctors recommending assisted dying to children, the one defeat she has suffered so far.
Many have consistently argued that a private members bill is not sufficient to debate something that will have such a profound effect on the country. Indeed, 52 Labour MPs asked Keir Starmer, a supporter of assisted dying, to give more time for further scrutiny, an appeal he rejected.
The issue today will be whether all these questions and issues will mean there are enough MPs to have second thoughts from their vote in November to overturn a 55-majority.
If the Bill is defeated then it will not come back before the next election, if Ms Leadbeater wins then it will have cleared its most important hurdle and a battle in the Lords awaits where many of the issues will be debated again.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Western Telegraph

33 minutes ago

• Western Telegraph

MPs share their own stories as assisted dying debate continues

Debating the proposal to roll out assisted dying in the UK, Sir James Cleverly described losing his 'closest friend earlier this year' and said his opposition did not come from 'a position of ignorance'. The Conservative former minister said he and 'the vast majority' of lawmakers were 'sympathetic with the underlying motivation of' the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, 'which is to ease suffering in others and to try and avoid suffering where possible'. I have seen someone suffering – my closest friend earlier this year died painfully of oesophageal cancer and I was with him in the final weeks of his life. So I come at this not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance Sir James Cleverly But he warned MPs not to 'sub-contract' scrutiny of the draft new law to peers, if the Bill clears the Commons after Friday's third reading debate. Backing the proposal, Conservative MP Mark Garnier said 'the time has come where we need to end suffering where suffering can be put aside, and not try to do something which is going to be super perfect and allow too many more people to suffer in the future'. He told MPs that his mother died after a 'huge amount of pain', following a diagnosis in 2012 of pancreatic cancer. Sir James, who described himself as an atheist, said: 'I've had this said to me on a number of occasions, 'if you had seen someone suffering, you would agree with this Bill'. 'Well, Mr Speaker, I have seen someone suffering – my closest friend earlier this year died painfully of oesophageal cancer and I was with him in the final weeks of his life. 'So I come at this not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance.' Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh spoke int he assisted dying debate (House of Commons/PA) Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden Dame Siobhain McDonagh intervened in Sir James's speech and said: 'On Tuesday, it is the second anniversary of my sister's death. 'Three weeks prior to her death, we took her to hospital because she had a blood infection, and in spite of agreeing to allow her into intensive care to sort out that blood infection, the consultant decided that she shouldn't go because she had a brain tumour and she was going to die. 'She was going to die, but not at that moment. 'I'm sure Mr Speaker can understand that a very big row ensued. I won that row. 'She was made well, she came home and she died peacefully. What does (Sir James) think would happen in identical circumstances, if this Bill existed?' Sir James replied: 'She asks me to speculate into a set of circumstances which are personal and painful, and I suspect she and I both know that the outcome could have been very, very different, and the the moments that she had with her sister, just like the moments I had with my dear friend, those moments might have been lost.' He had earlier said MPs 'were promised the gold-standard, a judicially underpinned set of protections and safeguards', which were removed when a committee of MPs scrutinised the Bill. He added: '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).' Mr Garnier, who is also a former minister, told the Commons he had watched 'the start of the decline for something as painful and as difficult as pancreatic cancer' after his mother's diagnosis. 'My mother wasn't frightened of dying at all,' he continued. 'My mother would talk about it and she knew that she was going to die, but she was terrified of the pain, and on many occasions she said to me and Caroline my wife, 'can we make it end?' 'And of course we couldn't, but she had very, very good care from the NHS.' Conservative MP Mark Garnier said he would back the Bill (PA) Mr Garnier later added: 'Contrary to this, I found myself two or three years ago going to the memorial service of one of my constituents who was a truly wonderful person, and she too had died of pancreatic cancer. 'But because she had been in Spain at the time – she spent quite a lot of time in Spain with her husband – she had the opportunity to go through the state-provided assisted dying programme that they do there. 'And I spoke to her widower – very briefly, but I spoke to him – and he was fascinating about it. He said it was an extraordinary, incredibly sad thing to have gone through, but it was something that made her suffering much less.' He said he was 'yet to be persuaded' that paving the way for assisted dying was 'a bad thing to do', and added: 'The only way I can possibly end today is by going through the 'aye' lobby.' If MPs back the Bill at third reading, it will face further scrutiny in the House of Lords at a later date.

BBC News

44 minutes ago

• BBC News

MPs make case for and against assisted dying bill

MPs are debating whether to allow terminally ill adults to end their own lives, ahead of a crucial vote in the House of vote will take place at about 2pm and if MPs back the bill, proposed by Labour's Kim Leadbeater, it will go to the House of Lords for further the Commons first voted on the bill last year, it passed with a majority of 55 - since then at least a dozen MPs have switched to opposing the bill, but Leadbeater has said she is confident it will pass. Opening the debate in Parliament, Leadbeater told MPs: "Either we vote for the safe effective workable reform contained in this bill or we say the status quo is acceptable." She recounted stories from terminally ill people and their families including a man called Warwick whose wife Ann "begged him to put an end to her suffering - but he didn't want the last memory she had of him to be stood over her with a pillow".The last time MPs debated a bill to introduce assisted dying was in 2015 and Leadbeater said it "fills me with despair to think MPs could be here in another 10 years time hearing the same stories".She added: "If we don't vote to change the law today what does that mean? It means we will have many more years of heart-breaking 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." Speaking against the bill, Conservative MP James Cleverly said he was struck by the number of medical professional bodies who were neutral on the principle of assisted dying but were opposed to the specific measures in the bill. "When the people upon whom we rely to deliver this say we are not ready... we should listen," he said. He also disagreed with Leadbeater that it was a "now or never moment" arguing that there would be "plenty of opportunities" to return to the subject in the future. Labour's Diane Abbott - the longest serving female MP in the House of Commons - said there was "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".Another Labour MP Peter Prinsley recounted his experience as a doctor and said he believed the bill would give terminally ill people "final peace of mind". "There is an absolute sanctity of human life, but we are not dealing with life or death - we are dealing with death or death."For there is also a sanctity of human dignity and fundamental to that is surely choice - who we to deny that to the dying?" At the start of the day, MPs voted on a series of amendments that had been debated last included a measure to close the so-called "anorexia loophole" which would stop people qualifying for assisted dying on the basis of life-threatening backed that amendment as well as one requiring the government to publish a review of palliative care services within a year of the bill passing. Attempts to block access to assisted dying for people suffering mental health problems or because they feel "burdensome" was defeated by a majority of 53.

Glasgow Times

44 minutes ago

• Glasgow Times

Abusive social media posts directed at MSPs tripled in past year

It comes after the Scottish Parliament employed two members of staff – including a former police inspector – to trawl the social media accounts of 69 MSPs. The pair found 23,507 posts considered abusive between 2024 and 2025. However, the posts did not reach the required level to be considered criminal. Last year, the figure was 8,110. READ NEXT: Tesco tease plans to improve popular superstore In the most recent year, 257 posts were referred to Police Scotland – down from 461 the previous year – with one case proceeding to court. The SNP saw the highest level of abuse, with 15,749 posts directed towards its MSPs. Scottish Labour MSPs were next with 4,150, while the Conservatives were targeted in 1,888 posts. Scottish Green and Liberal Democrat MSPs faced 939 and 729 abusive posts respectively, while 52 messages targeted independent members. Male MSPs received vastly more abuse than their female colleagues, with 19,511 messages compared to 3,996. READ NEXT: American rock band to perform at Glasgow nightclub Lynsey Hamill, Holyrood's director of operations and digital, said: 'Whilst it is too early to draw any firm conclusions on trends and success of the scheme when comparing data from the pilot year and year one, we can see the scale of online abuse of MSPs is now readily apparent and growing. 'This chimes with feedback we have had from members for some time now.' A Scottish Parliament spokesperson added: 'The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) is acutely aware of the rising level of threat against elected representatives. 'Last year, the SPCB invested £125,000 to make permanent its online threat managing service. 'Under the service, potentially criminal threats are identified by the Parliament's security team and escalated to Police Scotland for its action.'