Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Amendment 24
213Ayes
266Noes
Defeated · majority 53171 did not vote
650 Members · Aye 213 · No 266 · DNV 171 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 20 June 2025 to reject Amendment 24 to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill by 266 votes to 213. The amendment would have barred someone from qualifying for assisted dying if their wish to die was substantially motivated by not wanting to be a burden on others or on public services, a mental disorder (including depression), a disability other than the terminal illness, financial considerations including inadequate housing, or lack of access to care and treatment. Its defeat means these factors were not written into the Bill as automatic disqualifiers. In practical terms, the vote means the Bill proceeds without an explicit provision excluding people whose motivation for seeking assisted dying is rooted in feeling a burden, experiencing mental illness, living with disability, facing financial hardship, or lacking adequate care. Supporters of the amendment argued that without such a clause, the Bill's existing safeguards around mental capacity and coercion are insufficient to protect vulnerable people from choosing death for reasons connected to social and economic circumstance rather than a settled wish to die. Those who voted against the amendment contended that the existing framework, including the two-doctor assessments, mandatory reflection periods, and High Court approval, already guards against these situations, and that codifying these factors as automatic bars would be unworkable or would exclude people whose wishes are genuinely their own. The vote cut across party lines, as the Bill carries no party whip. Labour MPs split 110 in favour of the amendment and 171 against, with 80 absent or with no vote recorded. Conservatives divided 58 for and 15 against, with 43 no vote recorded. Liberal Democrats voted 11 for and 51 against. Reform UK returned 6 in favour and 1 against. The Democratic Unionist Party's 5 MPs all voted for the amendment. Plaid Cymru and the Green Party both voted entirely against. The same day saw several other contested divisions on the Bill, which passed its Third Reading by 314 votes to 291.
Voting Aye meant
Support adding explicit safeguards to exclude people whose wish for assisted dying is driven by feeling a burden, mental illness, disability, financial hardship, or inadequate care — arguing current protections are insufficient
Voting No meant
Oppose this amendment, arguing existing capacity and coercion safeguards already address these concerns, or that the amendment is too broad and would undermine the Bill
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
110
171
80
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
58
15
43
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
11
51
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
12
18
12
Independent
—
6
2
4
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
6
1
1
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
1
0
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Moved Third Reading; argues the Bill is safe, compassionate, and necessary to end the injustices of the status quo; emphasizes strong safeguards and multiple capacity assessments.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,966 words) →
Opposes Third Reading; raises practical concerns about implementation, professional capacity, coercion risks in vulnerable communities, and loss of the promised 'gold standard' safeguards in Committee.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,204 words) →
Supports the principle of assisted dying but opposes this Bill; warns of coercion risks, lack of coroner oversight, for-profit contractor risks, and insufficient protection for vulnerable and marginalized groups.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (777 words) →
Opposes the Bill as currently drafted; highlights failure to close the anorexia loophole and rejection of amendment 38; argues lack of expert consensus from Royal Colleges makes it unsafe.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,018 words) →
Supports the Bill; draws on personal experience of his mother's painful death from pancreatic cancer and contrasts it with a constituent's dignified assisted dying in Spain.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (870 words) →
Opposes the Bill; argues it lacks professional consensus, will face legal challenges, cannot be properly implemented without willing professionals, and compares unfavorably to the 1967 Abortion Act model.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,467 words) →
Opposes the Bill; emphasizes disabled people's organizations' fears and shift from neutral to opposed stance; notes absence of disabled voices in consultation and poor accessibility of Bill materials.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (827 words) →
Supports the Bill; as a long-serving doctor, argues it provides essential choice to dying patients, protects vulnerable groups through panel oversight, and offers final autonomy and dignity.Unknown · Voted no · Read full speech (674 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0