Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: New Clause 16
208Ayes
261Noes
Defeated · majority 53180 did not vote
649 Members · Aye 208 · No 261 · DNV 180 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
New Clause 16 to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was defeated on 20 June 2025 by 261 votes to 208. The clause would have barred a person 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 unrelated to their terminal illness, financial considerations including inadequate housing, or lack of access to treatment. The Bill permits terminally ill adults in England and Wales to request assistance to end their own life, subject to a series of safeguards including assessments by two doctors, mandatory reflection periods, and High Court approval. New Clause 16 would have added an explicit disqualification based on the motivation behind a request. Supporters argued it was necessary to protect vulnerable people from being pushed toward assisted dying for the wrong reasons. Opponents argued that existing safeguards were sufficient, that the clause would be unworkable in practice, or that it would unfairly deny assisted dying to people with genuine terminal illness who also happen to experience financial hardship or disability. This was a free vote, meaning no party imposed a whip. Labour MPs split 103 in favour and 168 against, with 90 no vote recorded. Conservatives voted 60 in favour and 15 against. Liberal Democrats voted 12 in favour and 50 against. The Bill passed its Third Reading the same day by 314 votes to 291, meaning the defeat of New Clause 16 did not prevent the Bill from advancing.
Voting Aye meant
Support adding stricter safeguards to the assisted dying bill by explicitly barring requests motivated by feeling a burden, financial hardship, disability, or inadequate care — reflecting concern that vulnerable people could be pushed toward assisted dying for the wrong reasons
Voting No meant
Oppose this additional restriction, either because existing safeguards are sufficient, because the clause would be unworkable in practice, or because it would deny assisted dying to people with genuine terminal illness who also happen to have other difficulties
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
103
168
90
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
60
15
41
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
12
49
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
11
19
12
Independent
—
7
3
3
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
5
1
2
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
3
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
2
2
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