UK lawmakers reconsider the assisted dying bill after over 1,200 Lords amendments stalled it, reigniting debate over end-of-life choice and palliative care.
LONDON: British MPs were on Friday set to vote again on an assisted dying bill as protesters both for and against the proposed legislation gathered outside parliament.
The legislation was passed in a landmark vote in the lower house of parliament last year before being struck down in the unelected upper house.
The controversial legislation to legalise assisted dying has had a long and emotional passage through parliament, with lawmakers on both sides of the debate making impassioned speeches.
The bill would allow adults in England and Wales who have been given less than six months to live and can clearly express a wish to die to opt for euthanasia.
They would need the approval of two doctors and an expert panel to make the decision.
It passed in a historic vote in the House of Commons last June, but was scuppered by more than 1,200 amendments in the House of Lords, which was accused of obstructing and delaying the legislation.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was reintroduced by an MP from the ruling Labour party in the new parliamentary session.
If it passes at this stage, it will go forward for further debate, potential amendments and a final vote before going on to the Lords.
New Prime Minister Andy Burnham has said he will sit out the vote so as to not “unduly influence the debate”.
Since becoming prime minister in July, Burnham has relaunched his years-long push to improve social care for the elderly and vulnerable, and has supported prioritising palliative care.
Lauren Edwards, the MP who brought back the bill, urged lawmakers to pass it again and send it back to the House of Lords, “so that they can finish what they started”.
But cancer surgeon and former health minister Zubir Ahmed argued that the UK’s palliative care system was not ready for assisted dying.
He said he feared the bill would “not serve its laudable aims of bringing choice and control” for the terminally ill and was “less about relieving suffering and more about bypassing its possibility”.
