Today, Parliament voted on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill as it reached its second reading. The bill, originally introduced in 2024, proposed to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill individuals with six months or less to live, allowing them to choose to end their lives under prescribed conditions.
Since the previous reading, some changes have been made to the bill. Notably, the original requirement for a judge to approve each application has been removed. This change significantly alters the oversight mechanism that was intended to provide an independent safeguard, raising further concerns about how decisions will be scrutinised and how vulnerable individuals will be protected. Responsibility for approvals would now rest primarily with medical professionals, without the same level of legal review.
While I understand the intention behind making the process more accessible, I believe this amendment weakens the protections originally proposed and will increase the risk of unintended consequences. It reinforces my concern that we are not yet at the point, as a country, where we can introduce such a measure with the necessary safeguards firmly in place.
I want to thank all constituents who have contacted me about this issue. I have read and reflected on every message, and I acknowledge the strength of feeling on both sides of this deeply emotional debate.
However, having carefully considered both the updated provisions and my longstanding concerns, I have voted against amendments which sought to develop the bill today.
In the interests of the democratic process, I voted in favour of the closure motion to allow the bill to proceed to votes on the proposed amendments. Without this motion, the debate would have been brought to an end through procedural delay, effectively silencing the issue without a clear decision.
I believe this matter is of such profound importance that it deserves to be tested through substantive votes on the issues, rather than being blocked by allowing it to be talked out of time.
That said, my underlying position remains unchanged: I do not believe it is the role of the state to sanction the circumstances under which a person should die. Instead, I believe the state has a duty to protect life—particularly where individuals may be vulnerable, isolated, or subject to pressure.
Instead of legalising assisted dying, we should prioritise reforming our health and social care systems to ensure people receive the best possible support at the end of life. This includes expanding access to palliative and hospice care, increasing funding, and ensuring that every individual can experience dignity, compassion, and appropriate medical care in their final months.
I have to be honest, and it’s drawn from my personal experience and reinforced many times in support of constituents, that I believe there can be challenges across the health service in ensuring that patients and their families have all the information they need to make fully informed choices about their care now – including for older and vulnerable individuals facing end-of-life decisions.
I know that not everyone will share my perspective, but it’s important for me to share these thoughts openly, especially on such a vital issue, so that my constituents understand the reasons behind my position.
I deeply respect the views of those who feel differently, and I appreciate the thoughtful, heartfelt contributions shared with me. This is not an easy decision, but I hope you understand that I make it with care, conscience, and concern for those most at risk.
Thanks
Jim
Jim McMahon OBE MP 