British MPs approved on Friday at first reading in a historic vote the legalization of assisted dying for certain terminally ill patients, following an emotional debate.
The bill, which mobilized parliamentarians beyond traditional political divisions, will still have to go through several stages in Parliament before its final adoption.
But nine years after the rejection of a previous text by the House of Commons, the deputies this time aligned themselves with 330 votes for (275 against) on the growing support of the British population for the legalization of assisted suicide, after almost five hours of debate.
Labor MP Kim Leadbeater, who sponsored the bill, said before the vote that her text, which concerns England and Wales, would give “choice, autonomy and dignity” to terminally ill adults. an illness, having only six months or less to live. She stressed that it was governed by “very strict criteria”.
According to the text, patients must be able to express an informed choice and take the substance causing their death themselves. Two doctors and a judge will have to agree.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who had not spoken until now, voted in favor of the text, as in the previous vote in 2015.
According to a recent YouGov poll, three quarters of people in England and Wales support the law change.
Dozens of supporters and opponents of the text gathered on Friday in front of Parliament.
After the vote, former BBC star presenter Esther Rantzen, who suffered from terminal cancer and had helped to revive the debate on assisted suicide, said she was “absolutely delighted”.
The Care Not Killing association, opposed to assisted suicide, said it was “disappointed” in a press release, while emphasizing an “extremely close” result.
– ethical questions –
Currently, assisted suicide is illegal and carries a penalty of 14 years in prison if aiding or abetting.
The current law “is not clear and does not protect patients, families and health personnel, which pushes people to desperate actions”, defended Kim Leadbeater, during this debate fraught with ethical questions.
Many spoke, sometimes on the verge of tears, of the experience of a loved one to support their support or opposition to the text.
Kim Leadbeater told the story of Norman, a man who suffered from prostate cancer for 15 years: “when the disease spread and the pain was no longer bearable (…), he was went into his garden and shot himself in the head.”
For several weeks, the prospect of the vote has raised a debate on ethical, financial and religious grounds.
Around thirty spiritual leaders had expressed their “deep concern”, worrying that fragile people felt a “duty to die” to relieve their loved ones.
“How can we guarantee that an elderly person in a retirement home, who has been given six months to live, will not say to himself: ‘I am a burden (…) if I end my life now , my family will be able to save 25,000 to 55,000 pounds+?” asked Richard Burgon, an independent MP.
Rather than assistance in dying, many opponents have called for better funding for palliative care, while the public health system is going through a deep crisis.
– “Guarantees and protections” –
Kim Leadbeater assured that this law contained “the strongest guarantees and protections in the world”, and had “nothing to do” with those of Canada or Belgium, countries where the criteria are much broader.
Even if this text came from its ranks, the ruling Labor Party had not given instructions, and the government had asked its ministers to remain discreet about their vote.
The text must now be examined in committee, before being resubmitted for approval by both houses of the British Parliament.
Scotland, which has delegated powers in matters of health, must vote on its own bill in 2025. The Isle of Man is also examining a text, while Jersey, another Channel island, has validated the preparation of a law by 2027.
