Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill — Delay Second Reading — 12 May 2006 at 17:17
The Archbishop of Canterbury was absent
The majority of members of the House of Lords voted against allowing a physician to assist those with a terminal illness to die.
Members of the House of Lords were considering the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill. The motion being debated was:
- that this Bill be now read a second time
The amendment approved via this vote was:
- to leave out "now" and at end insert "this day six months".
This division was on an amendment to give a second reading to the Bill in six months' time, rather than immediately. This is a polite way of indicating opposition to the Bill. A six months' delay would make it impossible for the Bill to progress in this session.
Some controversy emerged during the debate over whether it was accepted Lords practice to, in effect, reject a Private Members' Bill at second reading.
The operative clause 1 of the Bill began:
- Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be lawful for—
- (a) a physician to assist a patient who is a qualifying patient to die—
- (i) by prescribing such medication, and
- (ii) in the case of a patient for whom it is impossible or inappropriate orally to ingest that medication, by prescribing and providing such means of self-administration of that medication, as will enable the patient to end his own life, ..
The Bill's provisions applied to patients with terminal illness with the capacity to take a decision to end their lives, who had taken that decision.
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (Content)||Minority (Not-Content)||Turnout|
|Con||56 (+1 tell)||12||33.0%|
|Crossbench||36||18 (+1 tell)||30.6%|
|Lab||24 (+1 tell)||45||32.9%|
|LDem||14||21 (+1 tell)||48.6%|