Following its second reading in the House of Commons, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will move onto the next stage of its parliamentary journey, where it will undergo further and closer examination.
MPs voted in favour of allowing assisted dying by a majority of 55 – 330 for and 275 against.
The vote followed five hours of debate, where some MPs shared personal stories, while others called for a better solution for end-of-life care.
Each MP was given a free vote on the issue, independent of party instructions, and the government remains impartial on the issue.
When the issue was last voted on back in 2015, it was rejected by 330 votes to 118.
A number of lawyers expressed their thoughts and feelings on the news, some praising the result and others concerns about the complications it may bring with it.
Katie Wheatley, partner and head of crime, fraud and regulatory at Bindmans believes that those who are in favour of the bill chose to support competent people in making their own decisions.
She said: “The MPs who voted in favour of it chose to recognise the suffering of people who are terminally ill and give them a choice over how they die, while protecting the vulnerable.
“It is time for the law to change so that mentally competent people can make a choice that is right for them, and for them to be able to call on the support and end their days with the ones they love by their side, whatever choice they make.”
Alexa Payet, partner at Michelmores, believes that people who don’t feature inside the bill’s scope will continue to travel to overseas clinics for the procedure. She said:
“Travelling with a loved one to an assisted dying clinic, or even just helping them to book their travel, could be enough to trigger the Forfeiture Rule and means that they may not be able to inherit anything from their loved one’s estate, including shares in jointly owned property, pensions, and life insurance policies.
“The financial implications of assisted dying are complex and the application of the forfeiture rule in such cases is often misunderstood, even among legal professionals.”
Tamasin Perkins, partner at Charles Russell Speechlys said:
“We already see many cases of coercion and undue pressure in the context of financial decision-making, such as writing wills or making gifts, so its not unreasonable to anticipate this kind of coercion would go hand in hand with assisted dying.
“The real challenge could lie in detecting coercion during a single interaction when coercion can manifest itself in small and subtle ways, and the complexity of family dynamics can make this difficult to identify.”
The Bill was originally introduced by backbench Labour MP, Kim Leadbeater. It proposes giving terminally ill adults the right to choose when to end their life.
There are some baselines requirements that someone who can avail of this right must satisfy:
A High Court judge would also have to rule each time a person made this request. A patient would have to wait 14 days after the ruling, allowing them a period of reflection on the decision.
The Bar Council has issued a call for greater consistency in remote hearings and increased investment in court technology based on findings from a new report on the administration and delivery of remote justice.