The assisted dying debate takes a sour turn

New Statesman​

16-05-2025

`illustration by Getty
If there was a single moment that encapsulated the latest stage of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, it was surely when MPs cleared the lobby to vote – not on any of the amendments that had been argued about over the gruelling four and a half hours, but on whether or not to vote on them at all. In this great act of meta-democracy, MPs determined that they would in fact proceed to a vote. By then, there was time to consider just two amendments..
The mood on this sunny Westminster Friday could not have been more different from when MPs voted on the second reading of Kim Leadbeater's Private Member's Bill on assisted dying back in November. Back then, the question was a matter of principle, and the atmosphere was one of gracious respect and emotive compassion. MPs chose to progress the legislation by 330 votes to 275 – many of them, to quote the words of Liberal Democrat Layla Moran, on the basis that they 'want to keep talking about the issues'. Today was about hammering out the details. Although, as quickly became apparent, those details are far from being hammered out.
The bill's passage through committee stage has been contentious, marred by accusations on everything from the ideological make-up of the committee to the witnesses called to the nature of the amendments accepted – about 150, out of over 500 proposed. Committee members, most notably the Labour MP Naz Shah, have openly voiced their misgivings on procedural grounds. That was the main thrust of today's debate. 'This process is flawed, fundamentally flawed,' a visibly furious Shah told the House, to the loudest chorus of affirmative here-heres of the day. 'This is not how we make legislation.'
The practicalities were debated, of course. On the agenda today were amendments regarding provision (or not) for patients suffering from eating disorders, how the decision-making process would work in relation to the mental capacity act, whether to allow doctors to bring up assisted dying with terminally ill patients who have not mentioned it themselves, and how to identify and prevent situations of coercive control. Florence Eshalomi, one of the most powerful speakers during first reading, gave another passionate warning regarding the potential impact on minority communities who are already fearful of the medical establishment. Mother of the House Diane Abbott nodded along.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists, while neutral on the principle, said this week that it could not support the legislation in its current form. This intervention was repeatedly cited today. So too was the controversial decision to remove the safeguard of sign-off from a High Court judge in favour of a panel of experts. It was argued that the version of the bill currently before MPs was weaker rather than safer than November's.
But if the motif running through the second reading debate was of MPs putting aside party differences to examine the philosophical, ethical and legal issues. Today the frequent refrain of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker was: 'We are very short of time'. MPs were first requested to keep their contributions to under 15 minutes; as the hours ticked on, this was shortened to five. Again and again speakers declined to take points of order, on the basis that they had no time. The vast majority of MPs wishing to speak were denied the opportunity.
In November Kieran Mullan said in his closing remarks for the opposition that the debate had represented 'this House at the very best'. He was challenged in his statement today as to whether he still believed that. His reflection that 'We are where we are' sums up the feelings of many exhausted MPs.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Perhaps the sourness of today's performance reflects the messy reality of legislating on literal issues of life and death. There are those on both sides of the chamber who believe a private members bill was the wrong vehicle for a question of this gravity – equally, others believe the government could have done more to smooth the bill's passage. But there is also a view that, whatever the process, there was always going to come a crunch point when lofty sentiments about democratic debate dissolved into the inevitable tug-of-war between opposing camps. Time was always going to run out at some point. No one likes to see how the sausage gets made.
In the end, only two amendments were voted on: the first, put forward by Leadbeater herself, regarding guarantees that doctors would not be forced to provide assisted dying, and the second, put forward by opponent of the bill Rebecca Paul, on extending this protection to institutions wanting to opt out. The former passed; the latter – considered the clearest indication from today about the bill's future – failed by majority of 279 to 243. When it comes back before the House on 13 June, it looks likely there will still be a majority of MPs in favour.
[See more: Keir Starmer can rewrite the history of Brexit]
Related