An attempt to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales has cleared its first Commons hurdle.
MPs voted 330 to 275 to approve the general principle of Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
The legislation will now move on to the next parliamentary stage, with months of scrutiny still to come.
Some 17 of Scotland's 57 MPs voted for the bill, while 29 voted against it.
Another 11 did not vote, including Labour frontbenchers Ian Murray and Douglas Alexander, who were both away on ministerial business.
The SNP's nine MPs also stayed away as they have a convention of not voting on legislation that does not apply north of the border.
READ MORE
- Michael Shanks: Why I'm voting against the Assisted Dying Bill
- Revealed: How Scottish MPs will vote on Assisted Dying Bill
- CHAS call for minimum age for assisted dying to be increased from 16
- John Swinney 'wrestling' with assisted dying stance
Sir Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves both voted aye.
The result was welcomed by Scottish Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur, who is leading a separate bid to legalise assisted dying in Scotland. He praised the five-hour debate in the Commons which was, at times, emotional and passionate.
“This debate has shown the UK Parliament at its best with thoughtful contributions from across the House and a vote which shows a clear recognition that the present blanket ban on assisted dying does not work and that more choice, alongside excellent palliative care, is what dying people need," he said.
“It is important to note that this is not the end of the process. The bill will now get detailed consideration and everybody is going to have the opportunity to have their say."
Mr McArthur's bill will likely not be voted on by MSPs until the spring. Though similar, there are a number of significant differences.
The UK Bill makes terminally ill adults with a life expectancy of six months eligible for assisted dying if they are 18 or older.
The Scottish Bill sets the age limit at 16 and specifies that they “have an advanced and progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unable to recover and that can reasonably be expected to cause their premature death”.
Both Bills require the approval of two doctors for assisted dying, but the UK Bill also requires the approval of a High Court judge.
The Lib Dem said Friday's vote "reflects the wishes of the UK public, who overwhelmingly back a change in the law to offer choice and compassion."
“I am confident that MSPs in the Scottish Parliament will do the same when they vote at Stage 1 on my Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill," he added.
Opening the debate in the Commons, Ms Leadbeater said her legislation would give "dying people, under very stringent criteria, choice, autonomy and dignity at the end of their lives.”
The MP raised the case a woman named Sophie, who was watching the debate from the public gallery in the Commons.
She was diagnosed with stage four secondary breast cancer which has spread to her lungs, liver and pelvis.
Ms Leadbetter told colleagues: “She is allergic to opioids so she knows that her pain is very unlikely to be able to be managed. She has a 17-year-old daughter and all she asks is to have the choice to say goodbye to her at a time of her choosing in circumstances she can have some control over, and for her daughter to be able to remember her as the vibrant, positive woman she is.”
But her backbench colleague, Rachael Maskell said the bill was the “wrong and rushed answer to a complex problem."
The MP for York Central said coercion is her “greatest concern”, adding: “While we recognise coercion in relationships or elder abuse in dying – where there is malign intent – this Bill fails to safeguard.”
Ms Maskell also raised concerns about the Bill’s impact on disabled people, she said: “We fight in this House to take stigma, give dignity, equality and worth, it is why disabled people fear this Bill. It devalues them in a society where they fight to live.”
“If you stand for equality, you will recognise the safeguarding failures in this Bill,” she added.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel