UK lawmakers begin crunch debate on allowing terminally ill adults to end their lives
Since then, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has been scrutinized, leading to some changes in the proposed legislation, which is being shepherded through Parliament by Labour lawmaker Kim Leadbeater rather than the government.
Advertisement
Divisive issue
In opening the debate, Leadbeater relayed how she had heard hundreds of stories from people who saw their loved ones die in traumatic circumstances.
'Not supporting the bill today is not a neutral act. It is a vote for the status quo,' she said. 'And it fills me with despair to think MPs could be here in another 10 years' time hearing the same stories.'
Proponents of the bill argue those with a terminal diagnosis must be given a choice at the end of their lives. However, opponents say the disabled and older people could be at risk of being coerced, directly or indirectly, into ending their lives to save money or relieve the burden on family members. Others have called for improvements in palliative care and greater investments in hospices to ease suffering as a better and more moral alternative.
Advertisement
Passions were running high outside of Parliament where hundreds of people gathered to make their voices heard.
Supporters were dressed in clothing emblazoned with the phrase 'Campaign for Dignity in Dying,' while opponents held up banners urging lawmakers not to make the state-run National Health Service the 'National Suicide Service.'
The vote is potentially the biggest change to social policy since abortion was partially legalized in 1967.
What lawmakers are voting on
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would allow terminally ill adults aged over 18 in England and Wales, who are deemed to have less than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death.
The terminally ill person would have to be capable of taking the fatal drugs themselves.
Proponents of the bill say wealthy individuals can travel to Switzerland, which allows foreigners to legally end their lives, while others have to face possible prosecution for helping their loves ones die.
How the vote may go
The outcome of the vote is unclear, as some lawmakers who backed the bill in the fall only did so on the proviso that there would be changes made. Some who backed the bill then have voiced disappointment at the changes, while others have indicated Parliament has not been given enough time to debate the issues.
The vote is a free one, meaning lawmakers vote according to their conscience rather than on party lines. Alliances have formed across the political divide.
If 28 members switched directly from backing the bill to opposing it, while others voted exactly the same way, the legislation would fail.
Timeline if the bill passes
Friday's vote isn't the end of the matter. The legislation would then go to the unelected House of Lords, which has the power to delay and amend policy, though it can't overrule the lower chamber.
Advertisement
Since assisted dying wasn't in the governing Labour Party's election manifesto last year, the House of Lords has more room to maneuver. Any amendments would then go back to the House of Commons.
If the bill is passed, backers say implementation will take four years, rather than the initially suggested two. That means it could become law in 2029, around the time that the next general election must be held.
Changes to the bill
Plenty of revisions have been made to the measure, but not enough for some.
Perhaps the most important change was to drop the requirement that a judge sign off on any decision. Many in the legal profession had objected.
Now any request would be subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
Changes also were made to ensure the establishment of independent advocates to support people with learning disabilities, autism or mental health conditions and the creation of a disability advisory board.
It was already the case that doctors wouldn't be required to take part, but lawmakers have since voted to insert a new clause into the bill extending the provision to anyone.
The wording means 'no person,' including social care workers and pharmacists, is obliged to take part in assisted dying and can therefore opt out.
Government stance
There is clearly no consensus in the cabinet about the measure.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has indicated he will back the bill on Friday. His health secretary, Wes Streeting, is opposed, but said he will respect the outcome.
Advertisement
There are also questions about how it would impact the NHS, hospice care and the legal system.
Nations where assisted dying is legal
Other countries that have legalized assisted suicide include Australia, Belgium, Canada and parts of the United States, with regulations on who is eligible varying by jurisdiction.
Assisted suicide is different from euthanasia, allowed in the Netherlands and Canada, which involves health care practitioners administering a lethal injection at the patient's request in specific circumstances.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Starmer Faces Brewing Rebellion Over £5 Billion Benefit Cut
(Bloomberg) -- UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is less than 10 days away from the biggest parliamentary challenge to his authority in his not-yet year-long tenure. Security Concerns Hit Some of the World's 'Most Livable Cities' One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Taser-Maker Axon Triggers a NIMBY Backlash in its Hometown Unpopular cuts to disability benefits unveiled earlier this year as part of Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves' efforts to balance the country's books are due before the House of Commons for their first vote on July 1, with a large-scale rebellion brewing on the Labour back benches. So far, at least 150 of the governing party's Members of Parliament have indicated concerns about the cuts in two letters to the government. Other non-signatories have told Bloomberg they also intend to vote against the bill. While Starmer's attention this week was centered on the escalating tensions in the Middle East, the domestic threat was laid bare on Thursday when Vicky Foxcroft, a government whip who would have been tasked with helping quell the revolt, quit, citing her own objections. The rebellion threatens to bruise Starmer's and Reeves' credibility and further damage their stock with the left of their party. In order to avoid falling to what would be an unprecedented defeat for a government enjoying such a large majority so early in its tenure, ministers could at worst be forced into major concessions that reduce the bill's expected cost savings, forcing the Treasury to conjure up money from other cuts or tax rises at the budget in the fall. 'It's a test of Starmer's authority and the way he and Rachel Reeves are running the economy,' Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University London, said in a phone interview. 'If the rebellion is too big, you start to run into questions about the loyalty of your backbenchers and even perhaps the future of your leadership.' The welfare reforms allowed Reeves to save about £5 billion ($6.5 billion) a year by 2030 by making it harder for disabled people to claim a benefit called the personal independence payment, or PIP. The chancellor factored them into a spring statement as part of spending cuts designed to help meet her self-imposed fiscal rules. Reeves says the changes are necessary because an extra thousand people a day have been signing on for PIP, creating an 'unsustainable' impact on the public finances. PIP payments had been projected to almost double to £41 billion by the end of the decade, within overall spending on disability and incapacity benefits that the Office for Budget Responsibility — the government's fiscal watchdog — sees rising to £100 billion from £65 billion last year. The government has also says there is a moral case for supporting people back into work. But Labour lawmakers are concerned the government announced changes in a rush to deliver savings, without thinking through the impact on vulnerable people. 'There are alternative and more compassionate ways to balance the books, rather than on the backs of disabled people,' one Labour backbencher, Debbie Abrahams, told the House of Commons. There are particular concerns about a new requirement for claimants to score four or above in one of the daily living components of the PIP assessment, meaning people who can't wash half their body or cook a meal will be denied the payments if they have no other impairments. One Labour MP describing the process as letting the OBR tail wag the government dog. Some 45 Labour MPs signed a public letter objecting to the measures, while another letter — arranged in secrecy so that even signatories couldn't see who they were joining — garnered 105 signatures and was sent to the chief whip. While some of the would-be rebels have indicated they could be swayed by the government whips, one of them told Bloomberg they are confident that more than 80 MPs will commit to voting against the government. Given Starmer's working majority is 165, if all opposition parties vote against the bill, it would take 83 Labour rebels to defeat the government. The main opposition Conservative Party is planning to vote against the changes, Danny Kruger, one of the party's work and pensions spokespeople, told parliament in May. Its reasons are different: the Tories argue the measures don't go far enough. One Labour MP told Bloomberg that concerned lawmakers plan to put forward a procedural challenge to the bill. While they don't expect the speaker to select that amendment for debate, the aim is to force further changes from the government, and organize would-be Labour rebels into a coherent group which could eventually vote down the bill. Many in Labour had been waiting to see the bill before making up their minds. When the text was published on Wednesday, the concessions to their concerns were minimal, largely amounting to a 13-week transition period for those losing their PIP. Foxcroft — the whip who had previously served for four years as Starmer's shadow disability minister in opposition — quit within hours of the publication, saying she didn't believe cutting the disability benefits should be part of the solution to tackling ballooning welfare costs. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said Friday that Foxcroft's resignation wasn't a sign of a major rebellion, while conceding that 'of course' there are dissenting voices on such a big reform. 'Vicky is the only front-bencher that I've had a conversation with about resigning,' she said. Nevertheless, many so-called 'red wall' Labour MPs in northern and central England face a tough decision. Health Equity North, a public health institute, found that all the places most affected financially by the PIP reforms are Labour constituencies in northern England. In several areas, the number of people affected by the welfare changes exceeds the Labour majority, meaning those MPs could see a crucial drop in support. The government is gearing up for a fight, indicating it will make no further concessions. On Wednesday, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner failed to rule out stripping the whip from Labour rebels, while government enforcers are warning MPs that their political career prospects will be ruined if they oppose the bill. Whips and wannabe rebels alike expect the potential revolt to be whittled down as July 1 approaches. Some opponents are weighing whether to abstain at the second reading and wait until the third reading to take a more decisive vote, as whips are encouraging them to do. 'I'd be amazed if he were defeated here,' Anand Menon, director of the UK in a Changing Europe think-tank, said. 'If the whips got a whiff they were going to get defeated, they'd give some concessions. The worst of all outcomes is to lose this.' Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Rantzen warns peers not to hamper progress of assisted dying law
Assisted dying campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen has urged members of the House of Lords not to block landmark legislation on the issue. The Terminally Ill Adults (End Of Life) Bill cleared the Commons with a majority of 23 votes on Friday, but opponents have vowed to continue their resistance in the unelected chamber. The legislation could face a difficult passage through the Lords, with critics poised to table amendments to add further restrictions and safeguards to the Bill. Dame Esther told BBC Radio 4's Today: 'I don't need to teach the House of Lords how to do their job. They know it very well, and they know that laws are produced by the elected chamber. 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose. 'So yes, people who are adamantly opposed to this bill, and they have a perfect right to oppose it, will try and stop it going through the Lords, but the Lords themselves, their duty is to make sure that law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons who have voted this through.' Dame Esther, who turns 85 on Sunday and has terminal cancer, acknowledged the legislation would probably not become law in time for her to use it and she would have to 'buzz of to Zurich' to use the Dignitas clinic. Paralympian and crossbench peer Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson told BBC Breakfast: 'We're getting ready for it to come to the Lord's and from my personal point of view, about amending it to make it stronger. 'We've been told it's the strongest Bill in the world, but to be honest, it's not very high bar for other legislation. 'So I do think there are a lot more safeguards that could be put in.' Conservative peer and disability rights campaigner Lord Shinkwin said the narrow Commons majority underlined the need for peers to take a close look at the legislation. He told Today 'I think the House of Lords has a duty to expose and to subject this Bill to forensic scrutiny' but 'I don't think it's a question of blocking it so much as performing our duty as a revising chamber'. He added: 'The margin yesterday was so close that many MPs would appreciate the opportunity to look at this again in respect of safeguards as they relate to those who feel vulnerable, whether that's disabled people or older people.' Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who steered the Bill through the Commons, told the PA news agency she hoped peers would not seek to derail the legislation, which could run out of parliamentary time if it is held up in the Lords. She said: 'I would be upset to think that anybody was playing games with such an important and such an emotional issue.' A group of 27 Labour MPs who voted against the legislation said: 'We were elected to represent both of those groups and are still deeply concerned about the risks in this Bill of coercion of the old and discrimination against the disabled, people with anorexia and black, Asian and minority ethnic people, who we know do not receive equitable health care. 'As the Bill moves to the House of Lords it must receive the scrutiny that it needs. Not about the principles of assisted dying but its application in this deeply flawed Bill.' Meanwhile, one of the leading opponents of the Bill, Conservative Danny Kruger, said 'these are apocalyptic times'. In a series of tweets on Friday night, the East Wiltshire MP – who is at odds with his mother, Great British Bake Off judge Dame Prue Leith in her support for legalisation – accused assisted dying campaigners of being 'militant anti-Christians' who had failed to 'engage with the detail of the Bill'.
Bloomberg
8 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Starmer Faces Brewing Rebellion Over £5 Billion Benefit Cut
By , Lucy White, and Joe Mayes Save UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is less than 10 days away from the biggest parliamentary challenge to his authority in his not-yet year-long tenure. Unpopular cuts to disability benefits unveiled earlier this year as part of Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves' efforts to balance the country's books are due before the House of Commons for their first vote on July 1, with a large-scale rebellion brewing on the Labour back benches.
