MPs have voted to support the assisted dying bill which would allow terminally ill adults to end their lives, following an hours-long debate covering the role and expertise of doctors.
Today, 330 MPs voted in favour of progressing the bill through Parliament, while 275 voted against it.
The proposed legislation, which was introduced as a private members bill by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, requires the participation of two doctors who assess terminally ill adults and sign off on the decision.
However, it makes clear that doctors are not under ‘any duty’ to raise assisted dying with patients or to ‘participate in the provision of assistance’ if they do not wish to.
Only adults whose death from terminal illness ‘can reasonably be expected’ within six months would be eligible to receive assistance to end their life, and doctors must also ensure they have ‘capacity’ to make the decision.
Today’s historic vote means that the bill has passed its ‘second reading’ in the House of Commons, and will move on to further stages with the backing of MPs.
The two GPs who sit in the House of Commons – Labour’s Dr Simon Opher and the Conservatives’ Dr Luke Evans – both voted in favour of the bill.
During the debate, which lasts almost five hours, several MPs raised concerns about potential coercion, a perceived lack of adequate safeguards and the role that doctors will play in the process.
Conservative MP Danny Kruger argued that ‘terminally ill’ is a ‘term of great elasticity, almost to the point of meaninglessness’ and that it is a ‘purely subjective judgment’ made by the assessing doctor.
‘It is well known […] that it is impossible for doctors to predict with any accuracy that somebody will die within six months,’ he said.
Meanwhile, Labour MP Diane Abbott said she does ‘not believe that the safeguards are sufficient’ within the bill.
She continued: ‘They are supposed to be the strongest in the world because of the involvement of a High Court judge, but the divisional courts have said the intervention of a court would simply interpose an expensive and time-consuming forensic procedure.’
Speaking at the outset of the debate today, the bill’s sponsor Ms Leadbeater said that the using ‘terminally ill’ in its title was a ‘very conscious decision’.
She told the Commons: ‘That title can never be changed, and it ensures it is only adults who are dying that would ever come within its scope.
‘As such, this bill is not about people who are choosing between life and death. It is about giving dying people who have got six months or less to live, autonomy about how they die and the choice to shorten their death.’
Ms Leadbeater also said that having consulted with the medical profession, she is sure ‘they can and will fulfil’ their safeguarding responsibilities, and that they ‘have the expertise to do so’.
‘And let’s be clear, Mr Speaker […] this is not brand new territory for doctors – doctors working in partnership with other clinicians are already required to manage complexity in end-of-life decision making.’
She also supported the BMA’s request that doctors ‘should be under no obligation whatsoever to participate’, but said that if they do, they will ‘receive appropriate training and support’.
‘Doctors should be able to use their professional judgment when and if a conversation takes place, taking their cue from the patient, as they do in many other issues, and I welcome this patient-centred approach,’ Ms Leadbeater added.
In response to the vote today, the BMA reiterated its ‘neutral’ position on the issue of assisted dying, saying it does ‘not support or oppose a change in the law’.
The union’s medical ethics committee chair Dr Andrew Green said, however, that there are a ‘number of key issues that would need addressing given the impact on doctors, their patients and their working lives if the law were to change’.
He continued: ‘These include the need for an opt-in system so that doctors choose whether or not to participate, the right for doctors to decline to participate in any part of the process, and the protection from abuse and discrimination for healthcare workers.
‘Today’s debate has shown the importance of considering such details in the Bill, and following today’s vote we will continue to engage with amendments to protect doctors and patients as it progresses further.
‘Speakers both for and against this bill during today’s debate called for urgent improvements in funding for, and the provision of, high-quality palliative care. We strongly support those calls.’
Following the introduction of this bill to Parliament last month, the UK’s most senior medical leaders advised that it is ‘entirely reasonable’ for doctors to take part in the public debate around assisted dying.
The bill follows a Health and Social Care Select Committee inquiry looking into the current law and at international examples of assisted dying becoming legal.
翻译：
As the baby boomers reach their twighlight years they get the law changed to allow a dignified end. This is likely to be welcomed by patients and I don’t see any major problems if the experience of other countries with a similar law is anything to go by. True, the ‘antis’ keep bringing up occasional abuses but no country wants to reverse this step and it is generally very well supported.
I am personally pleased for my own end, as I can now rest assured if it gets too unbearable, I can choose to end it on my own terms at home and at peace.
Anything produced by this Government is likely to be hugely bureaucratic if not unworkable, hence also expensive and slow.
The six months life expectancy clause is obviously absurd; death is unpredictable. Suffering is not dependent on life expectancy.
Two doctors and a judge to sign? Do politicians not realise such people are perhaps busy already?