Helped dying One step is close to law being made After a historic vote in the House of CommonsTo pave the way for one of the biggest changes in social policy since legalizing abortion in 1967.
Following an emotional debate, the terminal was passed with a majority from 314 to 291 to 23, in which a flyed Commons heard the result of a major victory for his sponsor Kim Leadbatter.
It goes away now House of Lords For further investigation Where it is ready to fulfill more opposition,
The vote came after months of the debate of months, ending a third third reading debate on Friday.
Among the MPs supporting the Bill were Prime Minister Sir Kire Stmper and former Prime Minister of Tory Rishi Sunak along with former-health secretary Jeremy Hunt. In contrast, the current Labor Health Secretary voted against Wes Streeting.
The supporters of the bill attained the title of historic moment, which means that the help of dying will be available from the next election.
Humanist UK CEO Andrew Copson said: “The House of Commons has taken a historic step towards fulfilling public aspirations, which support the choice, dignity and compassion at the end of their life. We welcome it and are now ready to work with Lords on the law.”
Garima said: “It is a historic moment for choice, compassion and dignity at the end of life. Thank you Kim Leadbatter for his leadership and commitment to choice at the end of life.”
But even after the vote opponents, questions were being raised on the moral rights of the result, which were less than half of the eligible MPs.
Rajiv Shah, former advisor to the Ministry of Justice, said: “The bill of terminal sick adults has lost its absolute majority in the commons (they have got 314, and it is 318 for an absolute majority), and their lead has been cut by more than half. It has not a bad result. The fight continues.”
James Sanderson, Chief Executive Officer of Greed Care and Condolence Charity Supe Rider said that his organization was “worried that some people may feel that some people may feel that this is their only option.
“Our research found that 77% of people felt that terminal sick people could be forced to consider a aided death as they need life-care that they are not available. It has to be changed-no matter how Bill House of Lords move forward in their next stages.”
The debate saw tears from MPs and emotional arguments from both sides as parties were divided on the issue.
Opening the debate, Ms. Leadbatter told the bill aided to a -aided bill “There is not an option between living and dying – this is an option for terminal sick people how they die”.
The Labor MP said: “I fully appreciate that there are some colleagues who will never vote for any version of this bill due to their own fundamental beliefs – they religious or otherwise – and I am respected their views, despite disagreeing, but for those allies who are in support of a change in law, if we do not do today – what is not – what is not today?
“This means that we will have many more years of heart -wrenching stories, which we have heard in recent months in recent months”
Giving an initial speech for the opponents of the bill, former minister Sir James cleverly urged MPs that they could not investigate the “sub-arguments” of the bill to the colleagues.
Sir James told the MPs: “In the second reading debate, I created the issue that we need to think about the expansion of this bill and not only vote according to widespread principles.”
Referring to the passage of the future of the bill, if it cleanses the commons, the conservative former minister said: “We were told in the second reading that a lot of concerns, lots of concerns, a lot of concerns, a lot of detailed questions will be resolved through the committee process. We were promised by the status of gold, we were reduced to a judicial protection and security set.
“Those security did not make it through the committee.
“And I have also heard where people are saying, ‘Okay, there are problems, still issues, still worries, I have,’ Okay, ‘Lords will have their work to do’.
“But I don’t think this is correct and none of us should think that it is right to subdue our job for another place (House of Lords).”
The labor mother of the house Diane Abbott raised the problem of private firms, which will run the dying services aided for profit.
He said: “I came to this house to become a voice for the soundless. It has not always been in favor of my own leadership, but that is why I came to the house. Who can be more soundless than someone who is in his sick and believes that they are dying?
“I ask the members to speak for the soundless once in this debate, because there is no doubt that if this bill is passed in its current form, people will lose their lives, which are not needed, and they will be the weakest and marginalized in our society.”
However, speaking in favor of the bill, Dr. Peter Princele said that “I would have opposed this bill as a young doctor, but as an old doctor I support it.”
He said that in a long career, the experience of grief for patients changed his mind.
Lib Dame MP Josh Babrynde read a letter from a component, who died in terrible, painful circumstances.
“It could have been avoided if there was help in dying,” he said.
He was challenged on the problem of force, but insisted that the bills were serious consequences for those who forced others to die.
But former Tory leader Sir Ian Duncan Smith claimed that the bill had become “weak” since the second reading in December.
He said that the bill was “fundamentally flawed and unnatural”.