This article contains a summary of all my assisted dying votes since the first day, to the third reading on the 20th June. Scroll down to see specific amendments and how I voted across all the days the bill was scrutinised.
Today, we had the first day of Report Stage for the Assisted Dying Bill.
Constituents will remember that, before the first vote on Assisted Dying, I held a public meeting to hear your views and perspectives on this important issue. Over 600 constituents have also taken the time to write to me to share their experiences. I want to thank everyone who has taken the time to speak to me.
I ultimately decided to support the Assisted Dying Bill at its first Commons vote at the end of last year. I did so because I believed the Bill as it then stood, contained the right safeguards to protect vulnerable people, while allowing those who were approaching the end of their lives the choice about how they wish to die.
At Report Stage, MPs consider amendments proposed to the Bill. There isn’t a vote on the Bill as a whole. That will come at a later date.
Two amendments were put to a vote today. In the interests of transparency, I have set out below what the clauses relate to and how I decided to vote, as well as the ultimate decision the Commons reached on each amendment.
At the public meeting, one concern raised repeatedly was that medical professionals must be protected, and their decision about whether to take part in the process of offering assisted deaths be respected. As the Bill entered Committee Stage, I worked with the BMA and other colleagues to address this issue and tighten up the protections in the Bill further. Although my amendments were not ultimately accepted, the issues I wanted to see addressed have been addressed by the amendments voted on today.
There will be further amendments considered at the next day of Report Stage (likely to be on 13 June) which aim to introduce further safeguards, clear up the process, and affect the implementation of the Bill. I will of course set out how I handle these amendments following the second day of Report Stage, as well.
Vote 1: New Clause 10
I voted for
Result: agreed (voice vote)
This clause tightens protections for medical professionals who choose not to undertake assisted dying, including protecting them from detriment under the Employment Rights Act 1996. It was introduced by the Bill’s sponsor, Kim Leadbeater.
As already stated, I believe it should be a matter of personal conscience whether medical professionals choose to take part in the assisted dying process, and I attempted to amend the Bill in a similar fashion during Committee Stage. With this in mind, I voted for this amendment. The amendment passed.
Vote 2: New Clause 10a
I voted against
Result: not agreed (Noes 279 / Ayes 243)
This new clause would mean that employees whose employers did not want to take part in the process would also not be allowed to take part.
I believe choice should work both ways, so for me, this would restrict individual medical professionals’ right to choose whether to take part or not. It is also not clear what this would mean for employees who work for multiple employers. The amendment did not pass.
The following clauses were debated and voted on 13th June, 2025
New Clause 11
I voted for
Result: agreed (voice vote)
This new clause would allow for a coordinating doctor who chose, during the process, to cease involvement in an assisted death to be replaced by another doctor.
Again, this would in my view allow a medical practitioner to choose whether to be involved or not and make it easier for that practitioner to change their mind.
New Clause 12
I voted for
Result: agreed (voice vote)
This new clause places an obligation on medical professionals to report on any instance where they are not satisfied the strict safeguards in place under the Bill have been met, and where they have therefore declined to provide an assisted death. For example, where the professional does not judge a patient to have sufficient capacity to choose an assisted death, they would already be obliged to reject the request, and under this new clause would then have to make a report as to why they took that decision.
This seems to me an important strengthening of the Bill, to ensure that there is a proper record of decision-making. It could also be used to safeguard patients who attempted to “shop around” for an assisted death despite being ineligible because of the safeguards.
New Clause 13
I voted for
Result: agreed (voice vote)
This new clause tightens up the rules around the approved drugs which would be used to deliver an assisted death, requiring the Secretary of State to “make provision about approved substances” -- that is, set out the guidelines about which substances can be used, and in what way.
New Clause 14
I voted for
Result: agreed (voice vote)
This new clause prohibits any advertising to promote assisted dying, except insofar as intended to provide information for users or providers of services. Essentially, this amendment will ensure that it would not be legal to advertise paid assisted dying services to vulnerable people, which I believe to be an important additional safeguard.
New Clause 14a
I voted against
Result: not agreed (ayes 233/noes 254)
This would amend the above clause to restrict the powers of the Secretary of State to make appropriate exceptions to the no-advertising rule. My concern with this amendment is, while it is clearly well-meaning, it may have actually had the perverse effect of binding the Secretary of State’s hands from implementing measures designed to ensure appropriate safeguarding and access to assisted dying services.
New Clause 15
I voted for
Result: agreed (voice vote)
This new clause will mean that deaths brought about through this process will not be referred to the coroner for inspection as an “unnatural death”, so long as the correct processes are followed. This is a purely practical change to avoid unnecessary distress to families and an undue burden on coroners.
New Clause 20
I voted for
Result: agreed (voice vote)
This new clause clarifies that responsibility for setting out guidance in Wales falls to the relevant Welsh minister where there is devolved competence.
New Clause 21
I voted for
Result: agreed (voice vote)
This new clause ensures that relevant information is also available in Welsh.
New Clause 1
I voted against
Result: not agreed (ayes 230/noes 256)
This new clause would have prevented health professionals from raising the subject of assisted dying with adult patients unless the patient themselves first raised it. I voted against this because I believe that adult patients should be given a clear picture about options for their end of life so that they can then make a fully informed choice.
New Clause 2
I voted for
Result: agreed (ayes 259/noes 216)
This new clause prevents health professionals from raising the subject of assisted dying with children under 18. I voted for this amendment because I believe it is an important safeguard. It is right that assisted dying will not be available to children, and soit would not be right for medical practitioners to discuss it as an option with them. I recognise that there will be cases where older children close to the age of maturity and facing a terminal illness may wish to consider a full range of options, but on balance, I believe this is an important safeguard and am pleased it has been added to the bill.
The following clauses and amendments were debated and voted on 20th June, 2025
New Clause 16
I voted against
Result: not agreed (ayes 208/noes 261)
This amendment would have introduced a list of factors into the Bill which would render someone ineligible to receive support for an assisted death, including not wanting to be a burden on others, having a mental disorder or disability, or suicidal ideation. While I support the principles of this amendment, I had serious concerns about its workability. To take an extreme example, how can anyone who wants to choose an assisted death simultaneously prove that they do not have suicidal ideation? I was also concerned that this amendment would create a “check-list” for assessment, rather than allowing professionals to assess a patient’s genuine wish for an assisted death in the round. Finally, many of the measures included in this list are already elsewhere in the Bill. So while I support the principles of this amendment, I ultimately decided to vote against it.
Amendment 14
I voted for
Result: agreed (voice vote)
This amendment ensures that nobody who has starved themselves to a point of terminal decline, or refused water for the same ends, can do so as a way of gaining access to an assisted death.
Amendment 24
I voted against
Result: not agreed (ayes 213/noes 266)
This amendment would have required doctors to prove that a patient had mental capacity before permitting an assisted death. Again, I recognise the principle behind this amendment. But the Bill already contains protections to ensure mental capacity, and there is a tried and tested medical process for establishing this, which this clause would seek to overturn. As such, I was concerned the amendment would introduce confusion and would make the Bill less, not more safe.
Amendment 12
I voted against
Result: not agreed (ayes 223/noes 269)
This would have removed the powers granted in the Bill to allow the Health Secretary to amend the NHS constitution to enable the health service to provide assisted dying services. In my view, if this amendment had passed, it would have made it impossible for assisted dying to be offered on the NHS.
Amendment 21
I voted for
Result: agreed (voice vote)
This amendment requires the Secretary of State for Health to bring forward a report into the state of palliative care. I have always been clear that excellent palliative care should be a priority, and that assisted dying is not a substitute for investing in palliative care. As many constituents know, my mum died in a local hospice when I was young. So I was proud to support this amendment.
Amendment 77
I voted for
Result: agreed (ayes 275/noes 209)
This amendment was introduced to clarify, for devolved nations, where the relevant competency to implement the technical aspects of the Bill should lie. It will have no bearing on England.
Amendment 94
I voted for
Result: agreed (ayes 274/noes 224)
Likewise, this amendment clarified what powers should sit with the relevant Welsh ministers, and will have no bearing on the situation in England.
New Schedule 1
I voted for
Result: agreed (voice vote)
This new schedule introduces further protections for medical practitioners to protect their employment rights, regardless of their personal views on assisted dying and whether they choose to be involved in the process or not.
Amendments52-76, 78-93, 95
I voted for
Result: agreed (voice vote)
Various technical amendments which clarified parts of the Bill, made them operational, or introduced minor additional safeguards to strengthen the Bill. These were all introduced by Kim Leadbeater.
