
Assisted dying law change - everything you need to know as MPs prepare to vote
A critical vote will take place in Parliament today on whether to legalise assisted dying as MPs have the chance to cast their verdict on the Bill after it passed its first hurdle in November
MPs will take part in a make-or-break vote on whether to legalise assisted dying today(FRI).
The landmark legislation has been undergoing intense Commons scrutiny since November, when it passed its first hurdle by 330 votes to 275, a majority of 55. Today's vote is a critical test as to whether assisted dying will become legal in England and Wales.
Passing the bill would usher in one of the biggest societal changes since the legalisation of same-sex marriage a decade ago. But it faces intense opposition from critics, and MPs remain divided on the proposals.
Here's what you need to know.
What
Assisted dying is banned in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, carrying a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.
In Scotland, it is not a specific criminal offence but assisting the death of someone can leave a person open to being charged with murder or other offences.
How would the law change?
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, would change the law to allow adults with a terminal illness in England and Wales to apply for an assisted death.
The person needs to have fewer than six months to live and have the mental capacity to make the choice. Their decision must be "clear, settled and informed" at every stage - and free from coercion.
The application would be subject to approval by two doctors and an expert panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
The terminally ill person would take an approved substance to end their life. The bill doesn't specify what drug. This will be provided by a doctor but only the person can take it - they cannot be fed it by someone else.
Doctors won't be forced to take part in assisted dying as MPs have inserted a new clause to make this explicit. This also applies to anyone else who could be involved, such as care workers and pharmacists.
Independent advocates will be created to support people with learning disabilities, autism or mental health conditions, as well as a disability advisory board.
Other amendments made include banning assisted dying adverts and a ban on medics being able to raise the idea with anyone under 18.
What happens in Parliament today?
The Bill is back for third reading, which is the first time MPs will vote on the overall bill since November. Some amendments may be voted on before the debate turns to the whole Bill.
At the last vote in November, MPs backed it by 330 to 275, majority 55, to give the bill second reading. Some MPs could change their vote so both camps have been closely monitoring the numbers.
If it passes, then it will move onto the House of Lords for further scrutiny. It could return to the Commons if peers try to amend it, in a process known as "ping pong". But the Lords is not supposed to frustrate a piece of legislation passed by the Commons, as MPs are elected by the public and peers are not.
If the bill doesn't pass, it falls - meaning it won't become law. It is unlikely another attempt to legalise assisted dying would be made for years if this one doesn't pass.
A vote would be expected to take place mid-afternoon.
What are the arguments for and against?
Supporters say the ban on assisted dying is cruel, leaving dying people forced to suffer in pain and without dignity. They say terminally ill people deserve to have a choice to end their lives. Those who decide to go to Dignitas, in Switzerland, are faced with handling it alone or putting their families in a position where they could face criminal charges if they help them.
But critics argue the bill does not have enough safeguards and has been rushed through. They worry about people being coerced into an assisted death, while some argue it could lead to a slippery slope with the legislation expanded over time.
When could assisted dying become available if the law changes?
The implementation period has been raised to a maximum of four years from royal assent - meaning it could not be until 2029 if the Bill passes until later this year.
Ms Leadbeater said this was "a backstop" rather than a target and said she would put pressure on the Government to bring it in promptly if the Bill does pass.
A Government impact assessment estimated between 164 and 647 assisted deaths could potentially take place in the first year of the service, rising to between 1,042 and 4,559 in year 10.
Establishing a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner and three-member expert panels would cost an estimated average of between £10.9 million to £13.6 million per year, the document said.
While noting that cutting end-of-life care costs "is not stated as an objective of the policy", the assessment estimated that such costs could be reduced by as much as an estimated £10 million in the first year and almost £60 million after 10 years.
No funding has yet been set aside to resource an assisted dying service within the NHS as the Bill hasn't become law.
What about the rest of the UK?
The Isle of Man looks likely to become the first part of the British Isles to legalise assisted dying, after its proposed legislation passed through a final vote of the parliament's upper chamber in March.
Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) in May voted in favour of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. It will now face scrutiny at Holyrood - and can only become law if MSPs back it in a final vote later this year.
In the Crown dependencies, the Isle of Man passed its proposed legislation in March, making it the first place in the British Isles to approve the right to die. The bill must receive royal assent before it can become law.
Attempts to legalise assisted dying in Northern Ireland would have to be passed by politicians at Stormont.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


BBC News
26 minutes ago
- BBC News
NHS Devon scraps changes to cardiac care after objections
Planned trial changes to overnight heart attack services in south Devon have been Devon said it would not be going ahead with the proposals to drive out-of-hours heart attack patients to hospital in Exeter rather than Torbay to help cut costs and divert resources to cut treatment backlogs, said the Local Democracy Reporting signed a petition against the plan and two MPs said in the Commons the move could have endangered people. The service withdrew the plans in May to consider feedback and it now said it would develop a broader cardiology strategy for the region to be revealed next month. It said the strategy would be guided by clinical data and public feedback."Rather than only focusing on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, the scope will be expanded to include prevention such as cardiovascular disease, urgent and emergency care and elective care," it said."The priority remains the commissioning of safe, reliable and sustainable cardiology services that meet the needs of Devon's population now and in the future." Steve Darling, Liberal Democrat MP for Torbay, said the U-turn was "very good news" and showed people "won't stand by when vital services are at risk"."It's not a definitive victory but it feels like a step in the right direction, now it all depends on where this journey ends," he said."By campaigning we have achieved the outcomes that many people wanted, and we can have higher levels of confidence that we know where we are heading."


The Herald Scotland
33 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
MPs debate assisted dying before crunch parliament vote
The outcome will lead to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill either clearing the House of Commons and moving to the Lords, or falling completely – with a warning the latter could mean the issue might not return to Westminster for a decade. Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater (Jonathan Brady/PA) Opening her debate, Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater, said her proposed legislation is 'cogent' and 'workable', with 'one simple thread running through it – the need to correct the profound injustices of the status quo and to offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it'. She shared emotional stories from people she had met throughout the campaign to legalise assisted dying, both bereaved and terminally ill. Pressed by Conservative former minister Simon Hoare on concerns raised about the Bill by some doctors and medical bodies including the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Ms Leadbeater said: 'We have different views in this House and different people in different professions have different views.' She noted that all the royal colleges have a neutral position on assisted dying. The relatively narrow majority of 55 from the historic yes vote in November means every vote will count on Friday. The Bill would fall if 28 MPs switched directly from voting yes to no, but only if all other MPs voted the same way as in November, including those who abstained. Supporters and opponents of a change in the law gathered at Westminster early on Friday, holding placards saying 'Let us choose' and 'Don't make doctors killers'. On the eve of the vote, in what will be seen as a blow to the Bill, four Labour MPs confirmed they will switch sides to oppose the proposed new law. Paul Foster, Jonathan Hinder, Markus Campbell-Savours and Kanishka Narayan wrote to fellow MPs to voice concerns about the safety of the proposed legislation. They branded it 'drastically weakened', citing the scrapping of the High Court judge safeguard as a key reason. Kemi Badenoch (Lucy North/PA) Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch urged her MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide'. As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Ms Leadbeater has insisted the replacement of High Court judge approval with multidisciplinary panels is a strengthening of the legislation, incorporating wider expert knowledge to assess assisted dying applications. Before confirmation of the four vote-switchers, Ms Leadbeater acknowledged she expected 'some small movement in the middle' but that she did not 'anticipate that that majority would be heavily eroded'. She insisted her Bill is 'the most robust piece of legislation in the world' and has argued that dying people must be given choice at the end of their lives in a conversation which has seen support from high-profile figures including Dame Esther Rantzen. Dame Esther Rantzen's daughter Rebecca Wilcox outside Parliament (Yui Mok/PA) MPs have a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines. There is no obligation on MPs to take part in the vote, and others present on Friday could formally abstain. Ms Leadbeater warned that choosing not to support the assisted dying Bill is 'not a neutral act', but rather 'a vote for the status quo'. She said: 'It fills me with despair to think MPs could be here in another 10 years' time hearing the same stories.' All eyes will be on whether Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and senior colleagues continue their support for the Bill. Sir Keir indicated earlier this week that he had not changed his mind since voting yes last year, saying his 'position is long-standing and well-known'. Health Secretary Wes Streeting described Ms Leadbeater's work on the proposed legislation as 'extremely helpful', but confirmed in April that he still intended to vote against it. Wes Streeting (Ben Whitley/PA) Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has voiced her continued backing of the Bill, saying she she hopes it can clear the Commons and continue its progress to becoming law. She told Sky News she has a 'long-standing personal commitment to change the law on assisted dying with appropriate safeguards' and praised the 'very considered and respectful debate over the last few months on all sides'. A vote must be called before 2.30pm, as per parliamentary procedure. Friday's session began with considerations of outstanding amendments to the Bill, including one to prevent a person meeting the requirements for an assisted death 'solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking'. The amendment – accepted without the need for a vote – combined with existing safeguards in the Bill, would rule out people with eating disorders falling into its scope, Ms Leadbeater has said. Another amendment, requiring ministers to report within a year of the Bill passing on how assisted dying could affect palliative care, was also approved by MPs. Marie Curie welcomed the amendment, but warned that 'this will not on its own make the improvements needed to guarantee everyone is able to access the palliative care they need' and urged a palliative care strategy for England 'supported by a sustainable funding settlement – which puts palliative and end of life care at the heart of NHS priorities for the coming years'. Ms Leadbeater has warned it could be a decade before legislation returns to Parliament if MPs reject her Bill on Friday. A YouGov poll of 2,003 adults in Great Britain, surveyed last month and published on Thursday, suggested public support for the Bill remains at 73% – unchanged from November. The proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle has risen slightly, to 75% from 73% in November.


The Herald Scotland
33 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Will 2026 see people voting against parties - rather than for them?
Mr Swinney's two speeches mark a significant shift in the SNP's political strategy after their defeat in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election at the start of this month. When he and Kate Forbes, his Deputy First Minister and Economy Secretary, took over from Humza Yousaf in May last year, their priority was righting the ship. The SNP had been losing support ever since Nicola Sturgeon's resignation, and under Mr Yousaf's leadership had been overtaken by Scottish Labour, ultimately leading to their heavy defeat in the general election last July. Read More: Mr Swinney and Ms Forbes have succeeded in stabilising their party's position. Since July, support for the SNP has ticked up slightly. But their vote share is still down significantly at around 30-35%, at least 12 points lower than their result at the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections. The Hamilton by-election was a painful reminder of that fact, and that despite the collapse in Labour support since the general election, the SNP are still vulnerable in constituencies across the country. Current polling would see them win as many as 60 seats next May, down only a handful compared to 2021, but many of those seats will be tightly contested and swings similar to what we saw in Hamilton could cost them ten to 15 seats. What has been missing from Mr Swinney and Ms Forbes is a vision for Scotland that reflects public feeling about the state of public services and the Scottish economy and charts a way out of the morass. That's what Mr Swinney sought to provide this week. Whether that vision, such as it is, cuts through and either shores up the SNP's voter base or wins back some of those who supported them in 2021 but did not last year, is up in the air. The SNP have been in government for nearly two decades, and it's showing. They look and feel like a tired government running low on ideas and the political capital necessary to make the sweeping changes that Mr Swinney says are necessary. In the most recent Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, trust in the Scottish Government to work in Scotland's best interests fell below 50% for the first time. Just 23% said they were satisfied with how the Scottish NHS is running, the lowest in the devolution era, and 83% said that standards of living in Scotland are falling, a new high. I suspect that Mr Swinney's claim that the status quo no longer serves the public well will resonate just fine. His challenge is to persuade the public that he and the SNP, having now governed Scotland for so long without delivering the change he is claiming is necessary, are the right people to deliver that change. That will be a much harder case to make. Tying that change to independence makes that case that much harder. I understand why he has had to bring the constitutional question back to the foreground for party management reasons, as disquiet around his apparent failure to make a case for secession burst into the open after Hamilton. But a big part of the reason why so many independence supporters voted Labour last July was the SNP's apparent inability to deliver independence or significant change without independence. The former has not been addressed – the same insurmountable obstacles exist; nothing has changed on that front since the UK Supreme Court ruled that Holyrood could not legislate for a referendum back in November 2022. And the latter cannot be addressed if Mr Swinney is simultaneously arguing that sweeping change is needed, and that independence is a prerequisite for that change. Independence might be a priority for SNP members and legislators, but it is not a priority for the Scottish public. Just one-in-eight Scots think that independence is a top issue facing the country, compared to a majority who prioritise the economy and the NHS, and a third who prioritise education. Even among those who voted SNP last July, just a third prioritise independence. There's a risk that putting independence at the heart of their campaign next May distracts from the rest of the SNP's message and leads to a sense that they are out of touch with the public's priorities. In the end, though, none of that might matter, because there is no single party that voters are rallying to as an alternative to the SNP. While Mr Swinney, Ms Forbes, and their party are hardly popular – just 34% of Scots have a favourable view of Mr Swinney, and 21% of Ms Forbes – Labour are even less so. 27% of Scots have a favourable view of Keir Starmer, and just 20% have a favourable view of Anas Sarwar. While only around one-in-five Scots think the Scottish Government is doing a good job on managing the economy or improving the state of the NHS or Scottish education, just a fifth think that Labour would do a better job – a quarter think that they would do even worse. Mr Swinney may spend the months leading up to next year's Holyrood elections pitching a big vision, and of course he must begin laying the groundwork for the SNP's campaign and start making a compelling argument for why voters should let him hold on to the keys to Bute House. Who knows whether that will cut through and persuade anybody, but I have my doubts. It's far more likely that next year's election will be defined by dissatisfaction with both the Scottish and UK Governments, and distrust of politicians generally, with voters voting against parties and politicians they dislike most rather than for those they like. Mark McGeoghegan is a Glasgow University researcher of nationalism and contentious politics and an Associate Member of the Centre on Constitutional Change. He can be found on BlueSky @