The assisted dying bill has passed its final stage in the House of Commons, after MPs narrowly voted it through.
In a historic vote at today, 314 MPs voted in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, while 219 opposed.
“Individuals should all have the autonomy to make decisions about such personal and a profound part of their lives”
Kevin McKenna
The legislation will now progress to the House of Lords, where it will face further scrutiny.
The bill would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death.
This must be subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior lawyer and psychiatrist.
Several amendments to the legislation have been debated in the last few months.
In May, MPs approved a change that would make sure that nurses who chosoe to opt out of the process will not suffer any detriment for doing so.
Today, further amendments were tabled and passed, including one that would give ministers the powers to update the National Health Service Act 2006 to include voluntary assisted dying services as part of the NHS’s purposes.
Meanwhile, a ban on advertising assisted dying has also been extended to all of the UK.
MPs also voted for a UK-wide extension of regulations about approved substances intended to be used to help terminally ill patients to die.
Opening the debate today, Labour MP for Spen Valley, Kim Leadbeater, who first introduced the bill, said: “I’ve been pleased to work with members on all sides of the debate to ensure that this legislation is something that parliament can be proud of.
“A cogent, workable bill that has 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.”
Ms Leadbeater noted that amendments to the bill had added “further safeguards and protections for patients” and had widened the provision for healthcare professionals to opt-out of the assisted dying process.
“Cross-party working has strengthened the bill and the many safeguards in this bill ensure only terminally ill patients that are eligible under the strict criteria and who want to access assisted dying can do so,” she added.
The house heard how this was “not a choice between living or dying” but rather a choice for terminally ill people about how they die.
Kim Leadbeater
Ms Leadbeater concluded: “On a compassionate human level, and as responsible lawmakers, we should support this desperately needed reform that is rigorous, practical and safe and is rooted in the principles that should underpin any legislation: compassion, justice and human dignity.”
Also speaking at the debate, Kevin McKenna, Labour MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and a former critical care nurse, said the goal of the bill must be “to ensure all patients are protected” while empowering them to make decisions at the end of their life.
He said: “Having spent many, many years as an intensive care nurse in the NHS, I’ve witnessed the realities of end-of-life care countless times.
“I’ve seen patients find peace in their final days, but also patients who’ve been unconscious or unaware that their death was coming.
“And I’ve seen others endure pain and anxiety that no palliative intervention, none, will alleviate for them.”
Kevin McKenna
Mr McKenna, who voted in favour of the bill, said his personal experiences working as a nurse had “deeply influenced” his perspective on assisted dying.
He added: “They have reinforced my belief that individuals should all have the autonomy to make decisions about such [a] personal and a profound part of their lives, the end of their life, and their ability to make these decisions is, to me, fundamental to dignity at the end of life.”
Other MPs opposed the bill, including former nurses Paulette Hamilton, Labour MP for Birmingham Erdington, and Sojan Joseph, Labour MP for Ashford.
Several former doctors also spoke against the bill at the commons, including psychiatrist Dr Ben Spencer.
Dr Spencer argued that that the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Royal College of Physicians and Royal College of Pathologists, all of whom were neutral on the bill but had raised concerns about aspects of it, had “been ignored in pursuit of absolutist principle above understanding”.
He said: “Who are we if not the champions of the vulnerable, the voice of the voiceless?
“The question before us today is, do we believe this harm to the vulnerable is worth it? I say not.”
Responding to the vote today, Dr John Dean, clinical vice president at the Royal College of Physicians, said several concerns around safeguards for vulnerable patients, equitable access to care and the impact on the doctor-patient relationship “require further consideration”.
He added: “As the bill now heads to the House of Lords, we urge peers to address these issues to ensure the bill includes robust protections for both patients and healthcare professions.
“Parliament and the government must now work closely with the medical profession to ensure that all people, regardless of the choices they may face at the end of life, receive the highest quality care and support.”
Meanwhile, Nuffield Trust deputy director of research, Sarah Scobie, said: “Now that assisted dying is likely to become a reality in England and Wales, the debate on how that happens must begin: what organisations and staff will deliver it, what systems will be needed to ensure equal access, and how it can sit alongside existing care at the end of life which, as MPs have recognised, is all too uneven.”
She added: “Parliament has taken on the serious responsibility of voting this bill through.
“Now the government must shoulder the duty of building a service that works alongside our health and care systems.”
