British MPs vote in favour of assisted dying

A debate thatMPMPMPMPMPNHSMP.NHSMPNHSMPMPMPNHSMP had shown the best of Westminster—passionate and thoughtful—ended in a fittingly respectful manner. There were no loud cheers when, on the afternoon of November 29th, the Speaker of the House of Commons announced that s had voted in favour of legalising assisted dying in England and Wales. It is, for this newspaper and other , a moment of celebration nonetheless. Lawmakers, who were free to follow their consciences rather than party lines, have taken a big step towards a monumental social reform.The vote was never going to be a repeat of the last time a bill of this sort came before s; in 2015 they decisively voted down a similar motion. A new intake of Labour s were thought to be supportive of the principle of assisted dying; Sir Keir Starmer, the prime minister, had made it known that he favoured a change in the law. Yet in recent weeks, as a fierce public argument raged, it seemed as if critics of the bill had gained the upper hand. Sir Keir, keen to observe government neutrality, kept out of the fray; his health secretary, Wes Streeting, who opposed the bill, filled the gap.Much therefore hung on the five-hour parliamentary debate that preceded the vote. , the Labour backbencher who proposed the bill, presented it with force and empathy, focusing on the terminally ill people and their loved ones who want the law to change. She quoted the husband of an agonised cancer patient who had smashed a glass bottle of morphine in desperation to try to take her own life. “You get to a point where you stop praying for a miracle and start praying for mercy,” he had said.Opponents focused on the risks to the vulnerable. Diane Abbott, the longest-serving female , highlighted the risk to disabled pepole. Another worried about what might happen in another pandemic: might someone go down the route of an assisted death out of a sense of patriotic duty to the National Health Service ()? One of the most moving contributions came from Mary Kelly Foy, a Labour She was repeatedly told that her daughter, who was born with brain damage, would have less than six months to live. She eventually died at 27.But supporters pointed out that a person would need to consider their decision formally at least eight times in the process laid out in the bill. On several occasions Ms Leadbeater emphasised : that a person must have less than six months to live, and that two independent doctors and a judge must approve their decision. Fears about a lack of capacity in the and courts were rejected by Kit Malthouse, a Conservative . “Are people seriously telling me that my death, my agony, is too much for the to have time for?” he asked. Ultimately, he argued, this was about the rights of the dying, some of whom were watching on from the public gallery.Almost five hours into the debate it was Mr Malthouse who put forward the closure motion to end it. Outside Parliament, supporters and opponents awaited the result with bated breath. When it came it was less close than expected: 330 in favour, 275 against (see chart).This, as Ms Leadbeater has repeatedly said, is only the start of the parliamentary process; opponents will still have plenty of opportunities to block its passage. The bill will now move on to the committee stage, where it will be reviewed by a public-bill committee, made up of a group of s with divergent views. These s can propose amendments; unusually for a private member’s bill, the committee will also be able to gather its own evidence.The bill will then advance to the report stage, in which all s will be able to debate and vote on amendments. At a third reading of the bill, opponents could still table an amendment to defeat it. If it continues to be voted through, it will have to navigate a similar process in the House of Lords before the end of this session of Parliament (or risk having to start all over again).Sir Keir’s government will almost certainly have to play a more active role in order to ensure that Ms Leadbeater’s bill is given sufficient parliamentary time. It will also have to begin the work to ensure that any future law, which would realistically come into effect no earlier than 2027, can be implemented. One big consideration will be how to engage with the Welsh government, after the Senedd voted to reject a similar motion in October (health care is devolved in Wales). Much work will also have to be done to prepare the English and the courts.Indeed, Sir Keir, who voted in favour of the bill, may yet have moments where he wishes it had not passed. Assisted dying will suck up time and energy in 2025. And given that 234 Labour s backed the bill and 147 opposed it, the issue is plainly one that divides his party. Set against these considerations is another. This reform may prove to be his government’s greatest legacy.