The British House of Commons approved an assisted dying bill, legislation that would let terminally ill adults in England and Wales seek medical assistance to end their lives.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, introduced by Labor member of Parliament Kim Leadbeater, has been the focus of cultural debate for several weeks, with many opponents arguing the vote was rushed.
After five hours of discourse, with stories of death and family pain shared, the bill won 330-275.
The legislation now heads to the parliamentary committee’s third reading for further review. Bolstered by the support of the elected chamber, the bill has a good chance of becoming law.
Ms. Leadbeater told SkyNews she was “incredibly proud,” adding that “today, we’ve seen Parliament at its best.”
Conservatives such as Skegness’ Richard Tice and Great Yarmouth’s Rupert Lowe voted in favor, although fellow Reform U.K. member Nigel Farage turned thumbs down.
Mr. Lowe made his decision after surveying his constituency. More than three-fourths favored assisted suicide.
“I have my own views, of course, but on such an emotive issue I thought it was right to consult my constituents. My constituents have spoken, and that is how I will vote tomorrow,” Mr. Lowe posted Thursday on X.
Former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak made a late proclamation in favor of Ms. Leadbeater’s bill, writing in the Darlington & Stockton Times that he leaned toward empathy.
“I believe that, where possible, we should prevent suffering. I know from speaking and listening to many of you, that too many people have to go through painful, traumatic, drawn-out deaths. These moving, deeply personal stories have left a profound impression on me,” he wrote. “This bill will make these ordeals, which are so traumatic for patients and their families, less frequent: It will reduce suffering.”
Under the legislation, terminally ill adults over 18 years old who are expected to die within six months would be allowed to seek assistance in ending their lives, with approvals required from two independent doctors and a High Court judge.
Though the current rules mandate that the option be limited to those with terminal illness, critics fear those limits will widen in the future to include the disabled, mentally anguished and even the poor.
Ahead of Friday’s vote, Ms. Leadbeater told the BBC she remained hopeful that “MPs will show themselves, as they have in the past when major social reforms have come before them, ready to correct injustice and reduce human suffering.”
Former MP Robert Largan took to X to lament the vote’s outcome. “A few moments after MPs voted for assisted dying, the government whip on duty objected to and blocked the Children’s Hospices (Funding) Bill,” he wrote, referencing MP Christian Wakeford.
Mr. Wakeford had said in his statement in support of Ms. Leadbeater’s bill that “assisted dying should not become an alternative to high-quality palliative and end-of-life care.”
“This does feel a bit too on the nose,” Mr. Largan said in response on X.
The political site Guido Fawkes said Friday that Labor politicians celebrated the bill’s passage as a foregone conclusion the night before, reportedly in London’s karaoke hot spot BAM.
Lois McLatchie Miller, a British conservative commentator, said parliamentarians failed to do their due diligence. “MPs should have been watching @thelizcarr’s documentary the night before the vote. Instead they went to a raunchy karaoke bar. And voted mindlessly to jeopardise the safety of our most vulnerable citizens,” she wrote on X.
Other critics believe the “most vulnerable” will not be protected by the guardrails that bill supporters tout as stalwart — many wonder whether judges would actively assess each case or merely defer to the medical evaluations.
Given the limited number of High Court judges in the United Kingdom — just 108 — and some estimates suggesting there could be up to 5,000 to 6,000 cases annually if the legislation is passed, concerns have been raised about how the system would function in practice.
One Brit took to the social media platform to make one thing clear: The citizens will “never forget this. And a large group of people now see the state not just as shades of incompetent, but as intentionally murderous. The rules of the game have changed — the social contract ripped up. And they stand there cackling about it.”
Many members of Parliament feared the vote was too rushed. The details were released Nov. 12, leaving members just over two weeks to digest the contents before voting.
“Given the complexities involved in the debate on physician-assisted dying, it’s important MPs get as much time as possible to discuss proposals with their constituents and experts including clinicians, the judiciary, health and care charities and religious and community groups,” Dr. Ben Spencer, MP for Runnymede and Weybridge, told The Telegraph ahead of the vote.
Andrea Williams, CEO of Christian Concern, said in a statement that the bill, contrary to its purpose, “will create more suffering and chaos in the [National Health Service]. … MPs are voting for the bill at this stage in the hope that it will be fixed, however the legislation is framed in a way that means it can’t be changed. It must be stopped at third reading, and we will not give up working to protect life and the most vulnerable in this country from these reckless and rushed proposals.”
• Emma Ayers can be reached at eayers@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.