Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Amendment 12
223Ayes
269Noes
Defeated · majority 46154 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 223 · No 269 · DNV 154 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament defeated Amendment 12 to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on 20 June 2025 by 269 votes to 223. The amendment would have added a procedural safeguard allowing a further referral to another doctor if the independent assessing doctor dies or falls ill before completing their assessment report, mirroring an equivalent provision already in the Bill covering the coordinating doctor. The practical effect of the amendment would have been to ensure the assisted dying process could continue in cases where an independent doctor became incapacitated mid-assessment, rather than requiring the process to halt or restart from an earlier stage. Supporters argued it was a consistency measure, closing a gap in the Bill's internal logic. Without it, the Bill contains a parallel provision for the coordinating doctor under clause 12 but no equivalent for the independent doctor, leaving the two roles treated differently. This was a free vote, meaning no party issued instructions on how to vote, and the division cut across all parties. Labour MPs voted 113 in favour and 175 against, with 73 absent. Conservatives voted 66 in favour and 14 against. Liberal Democrats voted 12 in favour and 52 against. The amendment fell on the same day as several other divisions on the Bill at Report stage, including Amendment 24, which also failed, and Third Reading, which passed 314 to 291. The defeat of the amendment left the Bill's treatment of the independent doctor and coordinating doctor asymmetric on this procedural point.
Voting Aye meant
Support adding a procedural safeguard ensuring the assisted dying process can continue if an independent assessing doctor becomes incapacitated before reporting, keeping the Bill internally consistent
Voting No meant
Oppose this amendment, either because it is unnecessary, because it weakens the process by allowing substitution of assessors, or as part of broader opposition to the Bill itself
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
113
175
73
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
66
14
36
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
12
51
8
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
12
18
12
Independent
—
7
3
3
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
5
2
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