In an extraordinary session, Members of Parliament are convening to debate and vote on the Assisted Dying Bill, a piece of legislation that, if passed, would legalize assisted dying in England and Wales for terminally ill adults given less than six months to live. The gravity of the occasion is lost on no one, as the bill represents a seismic shift in how the nation deals with matters of life and death.
The Road to the Historic Vote
The journey to this momentous vote has been anything but straightforward. Assisted dying has been voted on and rejected twice in Parliament over the last 27 years, most recently in 2015 by a resounding three-to-one margin. So what changed?
In a twist of fate, Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP championing the current bill, secured the right to propose legislation by coming first in the private member’s ballot—a lottery that grants backbench MPs priority for their chosen cause. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s backing of assisted dying reform added momentum, though the government has remained officially neutral.
A Polarizing Debate
The lead-up to the vote has seen MPs and public figures alike grapple with the profound implications of the bill. Former Prime Minister David Cameron, once a staunch opponent of assisted dying, now believes the current proposal is “not about ending life, it is about shortening death.” Health Secretary Wes Streeting, a supporter in 2015, has come out strongly against it.
This is potentially the biggest conscience issue they’ll face. Many might never have deeply considered this topic before.
– Jessica Elgot, The Guardian’s Deputy Political Editor
Unlikely alliances have formed, with Labour’s Diane Abbott and Conservative Sir Edward Leigh jointly urging the Commons to reject what they see as a rushed bill that puts vulnerable people at risk. Freshman Labour MPs are said to be particularly conflicted.
Matters of Conscience
Central to the debate are concerns over coercion of the vulnerable, the readiness of the NHS to handle assisted dying, and the fundamental question of whether the state should sanction the ending of life. Supporters argue that the bill’s safeguards, including approval from two doctors and a high court judge, would make it the strictest such law in the world.
For many MPs, the decision is a deeply personal one. Some have turned to constituents for guidance, holding public meetings and informal polls. But as one critic noted, “MPs actually have a bit of a different job to the average person, which is to consider the impacts of a bill like this on wider society as a whole, and that is a different responsibility to when you think about what you might want for yourself.”
The Road Ahead
As MPs file into the chamber, the outcome remains uncertain. Significant numbers are said to be undecided, waiting to hear arguments from both sides before casting their vote. Even if the bill secures a majority, it faces a long legislative journey, with the potential for amendments and further votes in both the Commons and the Lords.
Regardless of the result, this vote marks a pivotal juncture. In a Parliament more diverse and progressive than any before, with public opinion overwhelmingly in favor, proponents believe the stars have aligned. As one put it: “It really feels like this is the moment—if it’s going to happen, it’s now. And if it isn’t the moment today, it might feel like it is unlikely to ever happen.”
Only one thing is certain: the eyes of a nation will be fixed on Westminster, as elected representatives grapple with one of the most profound questions a society can ask itself. In the words of Jessica Elgot, “It fundamentally changes the attitude the state has to life and death. I can’t think of many things that are more important.”
