This is Prospect’s rolling coverage of the assisted dying debate. This page will be updated with the latest from our correspondent, Mark Mardell. Read the rest of our coverage here
2.25pm
The bill has been passed by 330 to 275.
Have we entered a new world? And what happens next?
More soon.
2pm
It has been a respectful debate, with some MPs close to tears as they tell their personal stories, but with little extravagant, over-emotional drama. Labour’s Dr Peter Prinsley, who’s for the bill, argued the choice was “not between life and death, but death and death”. Supporters of the bill have been stressing that assisted dying would only be available to those already near the end; opponents seem to ignore this point by raising worries about coercive control and domestic abuse.
The health secretary, Wes Streeting, sat on the front bench listening carefully as many argued that the answer to people’s plight at the end of life was to improve the state of palliative care. Conservative Ben Spencer claimed that the deficiencies of the NHS would lead to “coercion by state neglect”.
There have been lots of complaints that a private members’ bill is the wrong vehicle for this issue, and that there should be a royal commission or some other way to look in great detail at the potential impacts. One MP contrasted today’s short debate with the hours and hours devoted to discussing Brexit. True, but I’m certain those hours did not improve policy, regulations or the outcome. Former Conservative cabinet minister David Davis argued that if the bill does go through, the government must give it more time—it’s more important, he said, than most of the measures in the Labour manifesto.
12pm
The debate is well underway, with the bill’s sponsor, Kim Leadbeater, arguing that the "brutal and cruel" status quo must change. Conservative MP Danny Kruger is leading the opposition, centring his argument on the six-month terminal condition requirement. He contends that the term is highly elastic, arguing it’s impossible to predict how long a person will live. Furthermore, he claims that individuals could manipulate the system by refusing treatment or food to secure a terminal diagnosis.
Amid the familiar arguments about coercion, vulnerability, autonomy and competing horror stories, there’s an underlying question: is this the right approach to legislate on such a profound and far-reaching issue? Leadbeater asserts that it is and insists the change is coming. She emphasises the importance of ensuring that the committee overseeing the bill is as representative and wide-ranging as possible.
Critics, however, argue that this simply isn’t achievable with a private member’s bill. They highlight concerns about the limited scrutiny such a process allows. Opponents claim that the legislative framework is inadequate and rushed, and that a different bill or a royal commission is needed.
Conservative co-sponsor of the bill, Kit Malthouse, has made a powerful speech arguing death is often vile, and describing dying as often being an experience of “blood vomit and agony”—and that whatever happens today the terminally ill will still choose to die but often in violent brutal ways. He said he wanted the choice for himself, to avoid an end of torture and degradation.
10am
The big day has arrived. On the way friendships have faltered as fresh alliances have been forged, safeguards squared up to slippery slopes and party loyalties replaced with private passions. Outside the House of Commons Churchill on his plinth will stare down on protesters on the green, on surgeons in scrubs, doctors and dog collars, crutches and crucifixes, those who want the bill and the ability to end their life and those who fear this bill will turn their disability into a death sentence.
It will be a set piece, unmissable theatre, a drama of dull details and heightened emotions, a big day indeed. But it is the end of the day that matters. The vote. “Right to life UK” predicts they will vanquish the bill by just four votes (For: 285 Against: 289). The consensus at Westminster suggests they are wrong and Leadbeater will probably win. Probably.
For today will be “make your mind up time” for more than 100 MPs who have yet to declare their stance on today’s crucial vote on assisted dying. Both sides are gearing up for a final charm offensive to win their hearts and minds. But at this stage it is minds that they really want to sway.
A recent Times survey reveals those in favour of legal change hold a strong lead, with 264 MPs backing the bill, 215 against, and 26 abstentions. However, just under 150 MPs remain undecided or silent.
In the last 24 hours, two heavyweights have backed the bill. Former prime minister David Cameron, writing in the Times, explains how he changed his mind.
He says that he previously opposed changing the law because he feared that “vulnerable people could be pressured into hastening their own deaths”. This is a major point for critics of the bill, including religious leaders and disabled campaigners. Cameron cared for his disabled son, Ivan, who died in 2009 at the age of six after suffering from a form of epilepsy.
Cameron now believes the safeguards in the bill are enough to prevent abuse. He also brushes aside slippery slope fears, including the argument that it would overwhelm the NHS. He says if the bill here ever reaches the Lords he will vote for it, adding: “I would urge MPs to answer the bigger question: do I agree with the substance of this proposal or not?”
Which brings me to my fourth—and most important—question: will this law lead to a meaningful reduction in human suffering?
Adding to the momentum, former Supreme Court president David Neuberger, who ruled on some of the UK’s highest-profile assisted dying cases, has also come out in support. Neuberger, who once rejected applications for assisted dying, told the Guardian he believed the status quo was failing “the fundamental aims of the law—to respect people’s right of personal autonomy, and to protect the vulnerable.”
Neuberger said his experience sitting on cases involving assisted dying meant he was confident the tight terms of Kim Leadbeater’s bill—that it would apply to only those who are terminally ill—could not be expanded by judicial challenge.
