Keir Starmer must ensure that concerns about the assisted dying bill are met

Editorial: The House of Commons took the first step in leading the nation to a new legal settlement, but now it must meet people’s concerns about the practicalities, the costs and the dangers of such a fundamental change in the law

It turned out that parliament was ready to make the momentous decision to legalise assisted dying, after all.

Still, the mood in the House of Commons was sombre as MPs voted to take a decisive step into a new world in which the law will govern the end of life.

The majority by which the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was given its second reading – 55 votes – was substantial, and should be enough to carry the bill through its remaining stages in the Commons.

It will also carry some weight with the House of Lords, which will be reluctant to overturn such a decisive vote by the democratically elected chamber.

The moment the tellers announced the result of the vote was a hinge moment in British social and legal history.

Unusually, the result was heard in silence – a mark of the respect each side had for the other. Until that point, it had seemed that the more compelling arguments had been made by the opponents of the bill, and that, although its declared supporters were in the majority, sentiment was moving against.

As soon as the numbers were read out, however, we entered a new reality in which the fundamental question of principle had been settled. We suspect that the new norm will quickly become taken for granted.

It is important, therefore, not to lose sight of the arguments against the bill. One of the most powerful speeches in the debate was made by Jess Asato, the new Labour MP for Lowestoft. She spoke about the difficulty for officialdom of any kind to spot the evidence of coercive control and to guard effectively against it. “No bill, however drafted, could adequately sift those with a genuine desire to end their own lives from those doing it for all the wrong reasons,” she said.

We pay tribute to the many equally powerful speeches made in favour of the bill. Nobody could fail to be moved by the terrible cases of suffering and injustice in end-of-life care. Marie Tidball, the new Labour MP for Penistone and Stockbridge, who has a disability, made an impressive speech explaining why she had voted for the bill, in which she said: “I find myself voting in a way that I thought I never would.”

But it is the case against the legislation that should be uppermost in legislators’ minds as the bill goes through its line-by-line scrutiny. The opponents of the bill have pointed out many potential difficulties with the application of the law in practice. MPs should devote themselves to meeting as many of those objections as possible as the bill is revised.

They should strengthen the protections against coercion and manipulation. They should ensure that the voices of people with disabilities are heard throughout – and that their concerns are met as far as possible.

MPs should also do what they can to build in barriers to the scope of the bill being widened, if – and when – it becomes law. One of the strongest arguments against the legislation is that of the slippery slope: some of the reports from Canada of people seeking to end their lives because they felt they had become a burden to their families, or to the nation, confirm the dangers of consequences unintended by the original legislators.

The Independent had its doubts about the bill – and we thought that a delay for further consideration would be no bad thing. Now, though, we have to accept the decision and move to the next stage: that of urging MPs to take those doubts seriously, and of urging the prime minister to ensure that the bill is given adequate time to be debated thoroughly.

Some of the language of the bill’s opponents may have seemed over the top, as when Danny Kruger, the Conservative MP for East Wiltshire, said people need society to help them “to die well, not to give them this terrible option”. Former senior cabinet minister and practising doctor Liam Fox warned of turning the NHS “into a national death service”.

But MPs – and the government – must recognise that such language reflects deep-seated fears about the implications of such a fundamental change to the law in Britain.

Sir Keir Starmer voted for the bill, and has long supported the cause. He must now take ownership of the legislation – he has a solemn responsibility to meet those fears as much as possible. On Friday, the House of Commons took the first step in leading the nation to a new legal settlement, but now it must meet people’s concerns about the practicalities, the costs and the dangers of such a fundamental change in the law.