Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Amendment 94
274Ayes
224Noes
Carried · majority 50154 did not vote
652 Members · Aye 274 · No 224 · DNV 154 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
The House of Commons voted on 20 June 2025 to pass Amendment 94 to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, by 274 votes to 224. The amendment concerned specific changes to the framework governing how assisted dying would be implemented, relating to medical professional involvement and the practical operation of the proposed scheme. Amendment 94 formed part of a series of votes shaping the detailed rules of the Bill before it passed its Third Reading later the same day. The amendment advanced provisions that supporters characterised as improving access and practical implementation of assisted dying for terminally ill adults, while opponents argued it moved the framework in a direction they considered insufficiently cautious or contrary to established medical ethics. The outcome of this and related votes determined the precise legal architecture under which terminally ill adults in England and Wales could seek assistance to end their lives, affecting patients, doctors, and healthcare institutions. The vote cut across conventional party lines, as has been characteristic of the entire Bill's passage, with members voting according to conscience rather than whipped party positions. Labour MPs split 183 in favour and 110 against (with the Labour and Co-operative grouping adding 18 ayes and 11 noes), Liberal Democrats divided 51 to 12 in favour, and Conservatives voted 13 to 65 against. The Democratic Unionist Party, Plaid Cymru, and the Ulster Unionist Party voted entirely in opposition. The amendment passed as part of a sequence of divisions on 20 June 2025 that also included the Bill's successful Third Reading by 314 votes to 291, marking a significant legislative milestone.
Voting Aye meant
Support tightening the definition of terminal illness to exclude cases where someone has brought themselves to that condition by voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, preventing the bill's scope from being expanded through this route.
Voting No meant
Oppose this restriction, either because it is unnecessary, could harm legitimate cases, or because it might complicate care for patients who have already chosen to stop eating and drinking for other reasons.
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 Aye
183
110
68
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
13
65
38
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
51
12
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
18
11
13
Independent
—
2
9
2
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
2
4
2
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
5
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
3
1
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Your Party
—
0
0
1
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 aye · 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 no · 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 no · 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 no · 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 aye · 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 no · 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 no · 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 aye · Read full speech (674 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0