UK Parliament Votes For Assisted Dying Paving Way For Historic Law Change
London:
Britain's parliament voted on Friday in favour of a bill to legalise assisted dying, paving the way for the country's biggest social change in a generation.
314 lawmakers voted in favour, with 291 against the bill, clearing its biggest parliamentary hurdle.
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.
The vote puts Britain on course to follow Australia, Canada and other countries, as well as some US states, in permitting assisted dying.
Supporters say it will provide dignity and compassion to people suffering, but opponents worry that vulnerable people could be coerced into ending their lives.
The bill now proceeds to Britain's upper chamber, the House of Lords, where it will undergo months of scrutiny. While there could be further amendments, the unelected Lords will be reluctant to block legislation that has been passed by elected members of the House of Commons.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government was neutral on the legislation, meaning politicians voted according to their conscience rather than along party lines. Starmer had previously said he was in favour of allowing assisted dying.
Opinion polls show that a majority of Britons back assisted dying. Friday's vote followed hours of emotional debate and references to personal stories in the chamber, and followed a vote in November that approved the legislation in principle.
The vote took place 10 years after parliament last voted against allowing assisted dying.
Opponents of the bill had argued that ill people may feel they should end their lives for fear of being a burden to their families and society, and some lawmakers withdrew their support after the initial vote last year, saying safeguards had been weakened.
The 314 to 291 vote for the bill compared to last November's result, which was 330 to 275 in favour.
In the original plan, an assisted death would have required court approval. That has been replaced by a requirement for a judgment by a panel including a social worker, a senior legal figure and a psychiatrist, which is seen by some as a watering down.
The Labour lawmaker who proposed the bill, Kim Leadbeater, said that the legislation still offered some of the most robust protections in the world against the coercion of vulnerable people.
Hundreds of campaigners, both in favour and against the legislation, gathered outside parliament on Friday to watch the vote on their mobile phones.
Those in favour chanted "my decision, my choice", holding up posters that said "my life, my death" and photos of relatives who they said had died in pain.
Those against the legislation held up placards that said "let's care not kill" and "kill the bill, not the ill".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
39 minutes ago
- Mint
Britain's Labour Party Needs to Listen to Its Social Conscience
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Progressives on both sides of the English-speaking Atlantic have focused much of their energy and attention on championing minority rights and indulging in identity politics. Standing up for groups who've suffered historic discrimination is laudable; removing barriers to Black employment and giving gay people the right to marry are hard-fought achievements. Transgender people deserve protections too, with trade-offs necessary given the clashes of biological sex and gender ideology. But whether by preference or distracted by such concerns, social evils which used to fire up the liberal-left conscience — class inequality, lack of economic opportunity and cohesive societies — have been in danger of being overlooked or even downgraded. In the UK, a horrific, decades-long scandal of grooming and rape gangs of mainly Pakistani Muslim men who preyed on young white women has revealed the pitfalls of this lopsided approach. The story is distressing enough in itself, but it has wider resonance for Britain's governing Labour Party, which prides itself on caring for the less fortunate in society but has failed them — both under Tony Blair's administration when the crimes first became apparent, and due to a sluggish response under Keir Starmer. This doesn't absolve the previous Conservative governments from carrying a large share of the blame. As the cross-party peer Baroness Louise Casey pointed out in an audit published this week, one of the main reasons for ducking the issue was oversensitivity about ethnic and religious groups from a Muslim background. Starmer, an alumnus of London's top human rights legal chambers, is an exemplar of the progressive mindset. He also successfully prosecuted grooming gangs in his former role as head of the crown prosecution service. So the appalling detail isn't unknown to him. And yet, in January, the prime minister accused opposition figures calling for a national inquiry into gangs who preyed on underage girls of 'jumping on the bandwagon of the far right,' Elon Musk had wrongly tweeted that millions of young women were being targeted by Asian gangs; in the social media echo chamber, the populists of Reform UK were taking up the cry. But that didn't invalidate the fact that the matter had been buried too quickly and with insufficient attention to the causes. The PM's words have returned to haunt him – but the underlying omission is far more important. Across the country and in the areas where the gangs operated for years with impunity under the noses of Labour councils and indolent police forces, men of Pakistani descent have been vastly overrepresented among the gangs. This mix undoubtedly requires sensitive handling — but not downright evasion. On Monday, however, the PM was forced to give way after Casey found that the authorities had 'shied away' from investigating the horrific crimes and avoided its ethnic and cultural character. The government finally agreed that a national inquiry was urgently required. The trouble is, it was urgently required a very long time ago. Even Starmer's U-turn was couched in flat, emotionless language; he would 'accept' Casey's recommendation. His Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was more forthcoming: These rapes were 'a stain on our society' and she would initiate a new round of criminal investigations. But, in truth, none of this would have happened if it wasn't for pressure from those on the right of the political spectrum — and in some case the far-right — on a center-left government. Many of the most notorious gangs operated in Labour-held areas, and the councils who 'shied away' were Labour too. Alarmed by the potential threat to a fragile social peace in areas where large groups of incomers are often living lives wholly separate to the White communities around them, Labour had another reason to downplay the matter — concern about the reaction of a substantial Muslim voting bloc. Local councils urged the police to play down the systematic nature of the abuse. Overindulging group rights has also cornered the PM in the fierce debate over the rights of trans people and protections for women's spaces. When the Supreme Court ruled this year that 'sex' in Britain's Equality Act unequivocally meant 'biological sex,' Starmer's bloodless response was to welcome 'the clarity' of the judgment. We are none the wiser about what he really thinks about the issue. I have firsthand experience as a journalist of this reluctance of a liberal mindset to face inconvenient truths. At the Sunday Times, we published a magazine article in 2007 by a feminist writer Julie Bindel, exclusively detailing the abuse of girls by groups of Pakistani-origin men in the northern counties of Lancashire and Yorkshire. The article had been offered first to the liberal-leaning Guardian newspaper, which turned it down. Andrew Norfolk, a journalist on our sister paper the Times, was also subsequently accused of racism when he investigated the ethnic gang phenomenon. A few brave Labour MPs, mostly women, also tried to bring the problem to the attention of a wider audience but initially found little support from male colleagues in Parliament and local parties. And while a degree of discipline is necessary in politics, lack of curiosity about opposing or challenging views leads to problems getting parked and evils left to fester. On the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington more than 60 years ago, Martin Luther King spoke of his dream that his children would 'one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.' There's an enduring lesson here for all: The implication of the declaration is that wise progressives should not be blind to good and evil among Whites, Blacks and Asians, and steadfast in their willingness to confront the consequences. The price of ignoring wrongdoing, whoever the culprit, is much higher — and more painful for all concerned. More from Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Martin Ivens is the editor of the Times Literary Supplement. Previously, he was editor of the Sunday Times of London and its chief political commentator. More stories like this are available on
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
UK PM Keir Starmer calls on Iran to restart nuclear negotiations
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Sunday called on Iran to "return to the negotiating table" over its nuclear ambitions after the US carried out strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. "Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat," Starmer said on X, adding that "stability in the region is a priority". "We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Top 25 Most Beautiful Women In The World Articles Vally Undo The UK, a key ally of the United States, confirmed it had not been involved in the overnight strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites. "We, on this occasion, have not deployed British military force in this mission," Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds told Sky News, speaking on behalf of the government. Live Events "This was not a situation where that request (for support) was made and the US has used other means to carry out this mission," Reynolds added. But Reynolds confirmed that the government had been "informed" in advance of the attack. Britain moved extra fighter jets and other military assets to the Middle East as "contingency support" last week, as the conflict between Iran and Israel escalated. The UK will "take all actions necessary to defend our own interest... and of course, that of key allies if they are under threat," Reynolds said. Britain has sought to de-escalate the situation while still opposing Iran's nuclear programme since Israel launched strikes on Iran over a week ago. Israel claimed that Tehran was close to developing a nuclear weapon, which Iran has always denied. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy and top European diplomats met with their Iranian counterpart in Geneva on Friday to seek a halt in fighting.
Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
UK Says It's Not Involved in US Strikes on Iran, Urges Talks
The UK and its military assets weren't involved in US strikes on Iran's main nuclear sites and is calling for a diplomatic solution to the crisis. While Britain wasn't directly involved, Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Sunday offered tacit backing to President Donald Trump's action, saying Iran's nuclear program is a 'a grave threat to international security.' 'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat,' the premier said in a statement emailed by his office. 'The situation in the Middle East remains volatile and stability in the region is a priority. We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis,' he added. Speaking for the government on Sky News, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the US didn't request British assistance in the attack, nor use of its base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The potential use of that base by the US in strikes on Iran had raised concerns within the UK government about whether it complies with international law. The US did inform the UK in advance about the operation, Reynolds said. The US decision to proceed with military action demonstrates the failure of efforts by European nations to deescalate the conflict. Foreign ministers from the UK, France and Germany held talks with their Iranian counterpart on Friday but were unable to persuade Trump not to go ahead. 'The safety of UK personnel and bases is my top priority. Force protection is at its highest level and we deployed additional jets this week,' UK Defense Secretary John Healey said. Starmer will spend Sunday discussing the next steps with allies by phone, before he travels to The Hague this week for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit. 'Whilst the British government, the UK, has not been involved in these attacks, we have been making extensive preparations for all eventualities, including how we look after British nationals in the region and how we get them out, and the assets we have in the region to protect British infrastructure, British bases, British personnel if we need to do that,' Reynolds said. 'Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, but we need a diplomatic process to turn this around,' he added. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
