MPs at Westminster have voted to reject the assisted dying bill, in a significant blow to those campaigning to change the law – 11 years to the day after MPs rejected a previous attempt.

Had it passed, the bill would have made it legal, in certain circumstances, for terminally ill people in England and Wales to get help to end their lives.

It is the latest development in a long-running debate at Westminster over plans to legalise assisted dying. MPs first voted for an earlier version of this bill in November 2024 – a private member’s bill put forward by Labour backbencher Kim Leadbeater. They went on to pass a final version of it in June 2025.

But when the bill moved to the Lords it ran into trouble after a relatively small number of peers proposed an unprecedentedly large number of legislative “amendments”. As a result, the bill ran out of time before the end of the parliamentary session. For it to have become law, it would have needed to have completed its Lords stages. Any changes made by peers would then have required the approval of MPs.

This new version of the bill, proposed by Labour MP Lauren Edwards, picked up where Leadbeater’s bill left off.

In the latest vote, MPs sided 286 to 270 against the bill, giving opponents a majority of 16. This was a turnaround from the first vote in November 2024, when 330 MPs voted for the bill and 275 against. Compared to June 2025, relatively few MPs directly changed their votes: just five switched from support to opposition and none moved in the opposite direction.

The bigger issue was turnout: among opponents in 2025, 15 did not vote this time, whereas for supporters the figure was 43 (excluding those no longer MPs). This made all the difference against such tight voting margins.

Labour MPs were pivotal to the outcome. So-called “conscience votes” like assisted dying are often subject to “free votes”, meaning that MPs are free to vote as they wish.

In 2024, Labour MPs were divided, splitting 61% to 39% in favour of the bill. This time the divisions were even greater. Support dropped to 55% among Labour MPs who participated, while 45% voted against. Conservative MPs remained strongly opposed, while Liberal Democrats continued to be largely supportive – albeit with some fluctuation, including some switched votes.

Explaining the vote

At least three key considerations are likely to have been forefront of MPs’ minds: policy, procedure, and politics.

First is their views of the policy. While many MPs firmly support or oppose the legalisation of assisted dying as a point of principle, others have previously expressed more conditional support. In the run-up to this vote, opponents of the bill sought to highlight specific concerns, such as the effectiveness of safeguards to prevent coercion and to protect disabled people.

Since MPs voted on the previous bill, the Scottish Parliament decisively rejected a similar bill in March. MPs have also had more time to consider the policy and, unlike in 2024 when most MPs were newly elected, they are more experienced as legislators. Nonetheless, relatively few MPs directly changed their votes, suggesting that this had a limited impact on the outcome.

Second, MPs will have been weighing up procedural arguments about the bill’s passage. By reintroducing a bill that is essentially identical to Leadbeater’s, supporters were attempting to deploy the procedural weapon of the Parliament Acts. In short, this means that if the Commons approves the same bill in two successive parliamentary sessions, it can be passed into law without requiring approval from the Lords.

In the minds of many opponents of assisted dying, the reason Leadbeater’s bill failed was because the Lords was not given enough time to scrutinise a flawed proposal. They argued that if the Commons passed the bill again – making it possible to use the Parliament Acts – it would risk becoming law without these defects being addressed.

But for many supporters, Leadbeater’s bill failed due to “deliberate delaying tactics” in the Lords, not good faith scrutiny. According to them, the threat of the Parliament Acts was aimed at encouraging more constructive treatment by peers this time.

Many Labour MPs may also have had an eye on the broader politics. In 2024, they were led by a prime minister in Keir Starmer who had been a long-time advocate of legalising assisted dying. In 2026, Andy Burnham’s position was less clear-cut: while ultimately he abstained in the vote, he also expressed public reservations about the policy. This may have been read by some MPs as a tacit warning against voting for the bill.

And perhaps even more important were the undeniable party divisions that the previous iteration of the bill provoked. Had MPs voted for it again, these divisions would only have intensified as the bill worked its way through its legislative stages. The government would likely have come under growing pressure from some of its own MPs to facilitate the bill’s passage, risking further discontent.

At a time when the party was only just beginning to stabilise following Starmer’s departure, some Labour MPs may have concluded that the failure of this bill was a price worth paying to allow Burnham the political space to reestablish Labour’s electoral footing.

What happens next?

By voting against this bill, MPs may well have signalled the end of any prospect of assisted dying being legalised in England and Wales for the foreseeable future. It is possible in principle for an MP to bring the cause back following next year’s private members’ bills ballot, and some may judge that it is worth another try. Yet it seems likely that some other supporters will conclude that MPs have made their collective feeling clear.

During the debates over the past two years, some argued that a reform of this magnitude should not be left to backbench MPs, but should be taken forward by the government, perhaps following an in-depth inquiry such as a Royal Commission. This option remains a possibility – although whether the Burnham government will want to expend more political capital on this issue, with the risk of reopening party divisions, seems doubtful.

But it is also unlikely that this is the last we will hear of the campaign to legislate for assisted dying in England and Wales. If and when the time comes, the debates of the past two years will inform whatever comes next in that campaign.