hello, i'm kasia madera. this is the context on bbc news. the ayes to the right, 314. the noes to the left, 291. the ayes have it, the ayes have it! unlock! it's been a particularly emotional week for me because it was the anniversary of my sister's murder, and that's what brought me here. but jo used to say if good people don't step forward and come into politics, then want do we end up with? i really regret that the house of commons so far is still supportive, but i do think that is changing. we've seen a significant reduction in support for the bill. welcome to the context

on bbc news. it has been a historic day in westminster as mps have voted to legalise assisted dying in england and wales. the bill passed by just 23 votes after several hours of emotional debate. mps were given a free vote, meaning they could follow their own personal beliefs. the bill now moves to the house of lords, and if it passes there, it could be 2029 before assisted dying is made available in england. under the bill, adults who want to end their life must be terminally ill with no more than six months to live and have the mental capacity to make the choice free from coercion and pressure. patients must make two separate declarations about their wish to die, with two doctors and an expert panel assessing the application. if that application is approved, a doctor would prepare the substance required to end life, but the person must take it themselves. our political editor chris mason begins our coverage from westminster.

iran is now firing its missiles into donald trump's window for negotiation. state television showing the launches fired at israeli cities each day. apologies, of course, that report coming from the middle east but we are focusing on what has been a historic day in westminster. live now to westminster and our political correspondent damian grammaticas. we were hoping to have that report by chris mason, but we had some technical issues there. so i wonder if it's worth you just talking through what happened today because this is something that has been highly, highly emotive, but finally the bill has been passed by just 23 votes. that's right. so there was this debate today, the final debate in the house of commons on this, which has come after several months

in which the whole bill has been scrutinised. this piece of legislation has been looked at in detail, amendments proposed and debated on by a committee of mps, and now it was the full house of commons. and what we heard were very impassioned arguments on both sides, so those who are in favour, including the mp kim leadbeater who proposed the bill, said this was brought as under palm entry as a private bill that she brought, but with quite a lot of backing she had from across a number of mps across parties. and what the argument essentially was, that this gives people a choice, they said. it's not something that is sort of bringing a fundamental new sort of aspect, and what they say is it's bringing the right to choose

how you die because these are people who are already going to be terminally ill with, as you were just laying out there, six months left to live or less, and then have to be medically assessed. so they're saying is what it does is it does not... it gives the people the power to choose how they in their lives. the opponents, their arguments are essentially based around largely the idea that this bill was not fit for purpose, that it opens at the possibility that multiple people, particularly those who might be disabled, those from disadvantaged communities who have poor health anyway, who have poor experience when they go to see doctors, worse outcome from the health service, that if then offered by a doctor or told by doctor that this is an option, they might feel pressured to take it. an equally disabled people might, people with conditions like anorexia might also fall through the net and be offered

this. so they are saying that this is a dangerous bill that opens up the potential of harm and should not be pursued, but in the event of the vote, what we saw 23 mp majority, smaller than the first time it was debated in the house of commons but nevertheless it has passed and now goes to the house of lords, the upper chamber. yes, indeed it does, thank you very much for joining us from westminster. as he was saying, the bill then moves into the house of lords, where it's not guaranteed, but it is likely that it will be approved later this year. so as promised now, let's get our full report from our political editor chris mason. listen to our voice. our freedom, our choice! the cacophony of argument, the biggest of principles. kill the bill! responsibility, choice,

dignity, state, the individual. and, yes, life and death. those of us who may get to that point in our lives where we know we're near the very end and we are suffering intolerably, i think it is the only compassionate thing is to offer the choice. i just don't feel it's the answer. i really don't. i think we should be supporting people in life and not giving them assisted suicide, which is what it really amounts to. i call kim leadbeater to move... nine years ago this week, the labour mp jo cox was murdered in the street. today, her sister, kim leadbeater, led the argument for a profound, but controversial social change. benjamin franklin told us that "in this world, nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes". in this house, we debate the latter incessantly, but here and in the country as a whole, discussing

death is something we tend to shy away from. that, in a solemn and thoughtful way, changed here today, and this was the core of her argument. this is not a choice between living and dying. it is a choice for terminally ill people about how they die. but plenty were unconvinced, worried about coercion, the vulnerable, the overreach of authority. we already have the power to end our own lives. it's called suicide. it's not a crime. it hasn't been a crime in this country for decades. this is a different power. this is about the power of the state, through its agents, to exercise power over life and death. there is no doubt that if this bill is passed in its current form, people would lose their lives who do not need to and they will be amongst the most vulnerable and marginalised

in our society. for others, advocating change came after grim personal experience. supporting the principle of personal agency over a dignified death comes from the heart. the labour mp maureen burke spoke about her brother david and his diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. watch the two colleagues behind her wipe away tears. i've done right by my brother by speaking here today. what david needed was a humane, safe and trusted process available to him at home that would give him agency over his last weeks and months. that is what this bill offers. but hang on, say critics. some might benefit, others would not. how many lives taken in error is too many? one, one in ten, one in 100?

this house clearly supports the principle of an assisted death, as does the public, but not at any cost. but it was arguments like this next one which on balance commanded a majority. we honour life by giving it meaning and power, and the one thing that dying people ask for in their agonising final moments is control over the disease that is destroying them. next, the result. the ayes to the right, 314. the noes to the left, 291. afterwards, from both sides, the immediate reaction. and it's been a particularly emotional week for me because it was the anniversary of my sister's murder, and that's what brought me here. but jo used to say if good people don't step forward and come into politics, then what do we end up with? and even though some of us

feel quite out of place in this place at times, we're here to make a difference and we're here to do positive, important change that society asks us to do. for some opponents, the argument is not over. would it be, in your view, constitutionally legitimate for the house of lords as the unelected chamber to reject this entirely given that the commons has endorsed it? yes, i think it would. the fact is this wasn't in the manifesto for many of the parties. it's a private member's bill. it doesn't have the support officially of the government, and i think it would be appropriate if the lords felt the bill was unworkable for them to push back. this debate, then - with consequences for us all - continues, but a change the law is now likely, perhaps very likely. chris mason, bbc news, westminster. for many who campaigned on this issue, it's been years of work. our medical editor fergus walsh has been finding out how people are feeling after the result.

cheering. look what this vote means to campaigners for assisted dying. like christie and elise, who are both terminally ill with breast cancer. i am absolutely so happy, i can't tell you. this makes such a difference to the future of people who have terminal illness. a somebdy with incurable cancer, i live every single day thinking about the end of my life. and often that's how about i'm going to end it myself. in future, people will have that choice, they won't have to think like i do every day. i'm completely overwhelmed. this is going to save so much suffering and pain for so many people and their families. you are planning to join dignitas. do you hope that this law might come in in time for you to take advantage of it? i very much hope so,

but i suspect the reality is it will not be here in time. but still, i'm just so delighted. as cheers came from supporters, it became clear to opponents that the vote had passed. some campaigners here represent disability groups. obviously we're disappointed. it really is unimaginable to us that we're thinking about enshrining a state-funded right to die before people like me who have a disability that is classed as terminal illness have a real ability to live and get the supports that we need. it's not over yet. we're going to fight as it goes to the house of lords for better safeguards, for a safer bill and perhaps for it to get thrown out altogether. the fundamental concern is that it devalues disabled people's lives. against a backdrop of filing system, a lack of palliative care where only a third of the funding comes

through the government, the lack of access to that, the lack of social care, lack of access to the nhs services people need, it suddenly becomes a very attractive option, and that's not a choice. that is coercion. this is a hugely significant vote which will have profound implications for society. it sets england and wales on course to join a growing list of countries which have legalised some form of assisted dying in the past decade, including spain, australia, new zealand and canada. for supporters, this is about autonomy and choice at the end of life. opponents fear it will lead to coercion and place the vulnerable and disabled at greater risk. campaigners on both sides will keep seeking to persuade to persuade parliament. but today's vote means assisted dying now really does look like becoming a reality. fergus walsh, bbc news. surely we will

welcome back. more now on that news that mps have voted to legalise assisted dying in england and wales. it will now go to the house of lords, and if it passes there, it will become law. but how does it compare to other laws around the world? canada, australia, new zealand, spain and austria have all introduced assisted dying laws since in the last decade, with some even allowing assisted death for those who are not terminally ill. for more context about how the assisted dying bill compares to other assisted dying laws around the world, we're joined by dr stevie martin, a lecturer in public law at the university of cambridge. your work has examined assisted suicide through the prism

of the european convention on human rights. talk us through what we potentially could see in england and will send how that compares, whether it's stricter or possibly not. your thoughts on how this compares to other nations. thank you very much. so we are quite strict compared to other jurisdictions that permit some form of assisted dying. if you look at the eligibility criteria, we are limiting those who are eligible to adults 18 years and over. there are residency requirements. you have to be registered with a general practitioner's practice, and you also have to go through a process of approval which really does mark out england and wales in contrast to other jurisdictions and links that quite similarly with spain. both under the assisted dying bill and in spain you have a multidisciplinary review panel which engages in a review

before a person is assisted to die, which is quite unique. most other jurisdictions have a form of review after a person has been assisted to die, but as i say, this process of having a review panel that involves both a legal member, a psychiatrist member and his social worker member provides that opportunity to review a person's eligibility criteria and then they comply with her before they are provided assistance. you mention other jurisdictions, canada, australia and new zealand, they have formed a review but most of those reviews are after-the-fact. there may be some administrative processes in australia, for instance, but nothing like this form of panel -based review. so in terms of that process, it really does stand out compared to other jurisdictions that permit forms of assisted dying. apologies, but we talk about the panel because during the whole debate around this, there was not a lot of concern about the safeguarding and obviously

initially there was this idea of a judicial review over this. that's now been removed. we were talking about how that compares to other countries. do any other countries have that kind of judicial oversight on this? know, and that would have marked us out very distinctly compared to other jurisdictions. the legal member must be a member of high esteem, so they are his majesty's council or somebody was held offices as a judicial member, so high court, court of appeal or supreme court. and you also have the creation of a assisted dying commissioner, and they also are somebody who has to have very specific legal qualifications. so you still have that involvement by way of legal fraternity, if you will come of it but it is certainly not the usual approval that was initially proposed. that's very clear. fascinating to see those comparisons. doctor stevie

martin, lecturer in public law at the university of cambridge, thank you very much for joining us. and if you're affected by this story, you can call bbc action line, using the number on the screen to hear recorded information or visit bbc.co.uk/actionline. now let's bring you up-to-date with other news. one week on from the start of the conflict between israel and iran, attacks continue on both sides. the israeli military says it's hit dozens of targets in iran, including what it described as missile manufacturing sites in the tehran area. in israel, an iranian missile struck a technology park in the southern city of beersheba. lucy williamson sent the latest from tel aviv. iran is now firing its missiles into donald trump's window for negotiation. state television showing the launches fired at israeli cities each day.

this morning in beersheba, a security camera caught the moment of impact. this apartment block the latest civilian building to be hit. a family filmed picking their way out barefoot through the debris, holding the family pets. i would like us support, uk support, whoever can support us, it will help. it's not easy to fight alone. this is how i feel, that we are the only ones fighting. but it's ok. we are the front-line, and we have to stay strong. israel said iran had planned a much larger barrage this morning, but that israeli strikes destroyed three of its launchers before they could fire, along with a nuclear research base in tehran and several other targets. iranians in tehran today protested against israel's continuing attacks.

"we're here to prove that we fear no-one," this woman said. "it's you whose people are hiding in shelters. we must keep going until israel and america are utterly humiliated and brought to their knees." iran's foreign minister accused israel of war crimes. we were attacked in the midst of an ongoing diplomatic process. we were supposed to meet with the americans on 15th june to craft a very promising agreement. it was a betrayal of diplomacy. this afternoon, another wave of iranian missiles hit several israeli cities. one landing in haifa, home to a major naval port. donald trump has given tehran a window to surrender. each iranian retaliation risks pushing him further towards joining the war. lucy williamson, bbc news, tel aviv. let's discuss more on the situation, that ongoing

conflict between israel and iran. douglas lute is a former us ambassador to nato and a deputy national security advisor for iraq and afghanistan. i just wonder from your thoughts. we have been seeing a lot of diplomatic discussion throughout the day, whether it was in the un or geneva. we understand that there are really heated discussions at the un security council with israel accusing iran and iran accusing israel of escalating this. i wonder how this de-escalate is given we have this two week window proposed by donald trump. we are certainly in limbo somewhat. it's pretty clear that the trump administration's intent was to open this diplomatic window, visibly not longer than two weeks, and as a result in the first couple of days of that two week period you should you see some opening. if the openings of the un and talks with european leaders in geneva and that's all to the good. but it's also i think clear that

trump said not longer than two weeks. so it's not clear that we actually have 14 days. there may be some period shorter than that. but i just wonder if you say is given this open window for the opportunity for conversation, but having such an unknown within these two weeks, whether 14 days or less, it does just make it feel really, really tense. that's by design, write? so the administration is attempting to assert pressure, leverage on the iranian leaders, both by way of opening this opportunity for diplomacy but also at the same time, simultaneously gathering american military options in the region by way of aircraft and several aircraft carriers that are seemingly headed in that direction. and also i think time to allow the effects of the israeli bombings to take full weight on the

iranian leaders. so there is a number of different pressure points here that are being applied. you were the deputy national security adviser for iraq and afghanistan. you know better than anyone what happened in iraq when there was a regime change. if the administration is arguably giving this window of conversation, of diplomacy, but israel wants a regime change and iran, that could be potentially very, very difficult because we have so many unknowns, not least who would take over in iran. that's precisely right. if there is one key lesson coming out of the last 20 years of experience beginning with the 2003 invasion of iraq, it is that once you open an armed conflict, once you go to war, and israel is to really add more now with iran, that there are no certainties, there are no certain outcomes. and if you pursue an objective as

ambitious as regime change imposed from the outside, which the netanyahu government has at least implied in public statements, that the uncertainties are actually amplified. there is nothing clear about what would happen if the regime fell. there is not even anything clear exactly what would happen with tactical moves. so for example there is talk of this american option against fordow, the crown jewel of the iranian nuclear programme. it is not clear a tactical strike would work, so we are in a period here of absolute uncertainty in a period here of absolute uncertainty and we should take nothing for granted as a fixed outcome. we heed your words, former us ambassador to nato and deputy national security adviser for iraq and afghanistan, thank you very much for your time. so we finish this part of the programme as we watch the live shot of tel aviv, and i can tell you that this time last week i was on air and we were seeing those strikes across tel

aviv with plumes of smoke towering over the skyline

hello, i'm christian fraser. this is the context on bbc news. iranian rockets injure 20 in haifa, while israeli jets bomb nuclear sites around tehran. as the conflict enters its second week, diplomats in new york and foreign ministers in geneva try to find a diplomatic solution. welcome back. let's turn to the situation in gaza. health officials in gaza say israeli forces have killed at least 48 people in the latest deadly incident near an aid distribution centre.