Redefining the End: Parliament’s Pivotal Vote on Assisted Dying

Elize Hartzer

Tears were shed throughout the country as a historic piece of legislation passed its second reading in Parliament. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024 will soon allow those aged over eighteen with a life expectancy of under six months to medicinally end their life.

The bill faced an emotional five-hour-long debate in which many MPs valiantly shared personal experiences and perspectives, ultimately concluding with 330 MPs in favour against an opposing 275. While thousands of people breathed a sigh of relief in imagining their final days at peace, many- including Health Secretary Wes Streeting- expressed concerns of not only limited finances and further strain on the NHS but also corruption and coercion targeting some of the most vulnerable members of society.

First of all, it is vital to understand the contents of the bill and the regulations that make someone eligible to access assisted suicide. There are particular criteria and procedures to ensure a lack of abuse of the new system, including the following: one must be aged over 18 years; be a resident of England or Wales and be registered with a GP for a minimum of 12 months; have the mental capacity to make the choice and be deemed to have expressed a ‘clear, settled, and informed wish, free from coercion and pressure’; must have a life expectancy of 6 months or less; and two doctors must be satisfied the patient is eligible. This will all then be examined by a high court judge who will question the doctors, the patient, and anyone else they deem appropriate. Finally, the arguably most important clause is that the patient then must administer the drugs themself (with the option to back out), and the doctor must stay with them until the procedure is complete. All of this is subject to further amendments from the Houses of Parliament.

This varies significantly from the laws concerning assisted suicide in Switzerland- which is highly renowned for this procedure- and is substantially more regulated. In Switzerland, the legislation states that any adult can apply for this, on the basis that their reasons are not ‘selfish or monetary’ which has caused numerous Swiss non-profit organisations to campaign for tighter regulations. Additionally, many were concerned that the UK, by passing this bill, would generate ‘suicide tourism’ as frequently occurs in Switzerland, but this is not able to occur due to the requirement for English or Welsh residency. Thus it is evident that the government has a clear view of the presence in society they want this bill to have.

MPs were given a free vote on this bill- meaning they had no obligation to vote in favour with their political party. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves both voted in favour, alongside former Conservative PM and Deputy PM Rishi Sunak and Oliver Dowden. However, support was not recognised throughout all frontbenchers of the Labour Party, with several ministers (including the deputy PM, Angela Rayner, Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, and Health Secretary Wes Streeting) all voting against it. Wes Streeting shared worries regarding its impact on the already struggling NHS, stating “The policy would have resource implications which would come at the expense of other choices”.

She raises a vital question: how will this new procedure be funded and who will be paying? The Autumn 2024 budget saw a £25.7bn rise in funding for the NHS. Still, some argue this will not be enough to support the new programme, as it was originally intended to supply 40,000 more appointments and cut waiting lists. In contrast, the assisted dying scheme would require the creation and supply of new drugs, as well as more doctors to stay with the patients for the entire procedure. Therefore, it is arguable that this may cause a slump in progress for the NHS, and continue placing pressure upon it.

However, while there may be a slight negative impact on the healthcare sector, thousands of people are now relieved as they can end their struggle with ‘dignity’. Sky News Health Correspondent, Ashish Joshi, interviewed Frank Sutton, who has been struggling with liver disease and cancer for years, and was told she now has 3-6 months left to live. They watched the debate together, waiting silently for the result. When it was announced ‘she sobbed: I can die in peace now’. She later mentions the significance of the bill for her, as ‘if you don’t have quality of life, you don’t have a life’- we are also told about the significance of being able to plan the final moments of your life, without the thoughts of pain or morphine, and doing what you enjoy.

While there may be specifics left to consider still and work out, the integral part of the bill is that it brings a positive end to struggling for Frank, and many others fighting terminal illness within the UK. Despite the bill failing in 2015 with a ratio of 118 votes in favour against 330, the success now is a vital step in the exercise of liberty and human rights- which the ECHR has recognised that the decision to end one’s own life, when terminally ill, falls under Article 8 (the right to a private life) as well as Article 3 (the freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment). After all, surely people who are enduring endless, horrific diseases should have the freedom to end the battle, should they choose to.