MPs have voted against enshrining the right to die in British law after more than four hours of impassioned debate.
The Commons declined to give a second reading to the Assisted Dying Bill by 330 to 118, majority 212, firmly rejecting measures which would have handed adults of sound mind and with less than six months to live the right to ask for medical help to die.
The free vote was the first time since 1997 the Commons had voted on the right to die.
The issue broke across party lines as MPs on both sides of the Commons deployed personal anecdotes, career experience and a background in faith to press their case.
Labour MP Rob Marris proposed the Private Member's Bill from the backbenches.
He argued the current law was a "mess" and said Parliament must "grasp" the issue.
Wolverhampton South West MP Mr Marris told MPs: "I don't know if I had a terminal illness with a prognosis of less than six months if I would.
"But I and many other people would find it comforting to know that the choice is available - to have the option of choosing a dignified and peaceful death at a time and place and in a manner of my own choosing, at my own hand.
"I think there's been a trend in our society, which I support, in many cases that if the exercise of a choice does not harm others in a free society, we should allow that choice."
His proposals came under sustained attack from critics on both sides.
Tory Fiona Bruce (Congleton) said: "We will have crossed the rubicon from killing people being illegal to killing people being legal."
Labour's Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) argued the campaign to legalise assisted suicide "reinforces deep-seated beliefs that the lives of disabled people are not worth as much as other people's".
SNP MP Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire), a breast cancer surgeon, said: "When the public support this, they are not actually thinking about the last six months of a terminal illness. They are thinking about Alzheimer's.
"They are thinking about motor neurone disease, they are thinking about Parkinson's - none of which this Bill will solve."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article