MPs are debating again proposals to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales, ahead of a new Commons vote - watch live at the top of the page
It's the second attempt to change the law - last year an identical bill was supported by MPs, but stalled and ran out of time in the House of Lords
The bill would allow adults with fewer than six months to live to apply to be given help to end their own life, subject to certain safeguards - here's a quick guide
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who brought forward the initial bill, says the "status quo for terminally ill people is not acceptable"; her Labour colleague Patrick Hurley says "fundamentally, this bill is not safe"
Both sides expect the result to be close - one person closely involved tells the BBC: "It's on a knife edge"
The fundamentals of this debate have not changed. But this time it is unlikely to end in stasis, our political correspondent writes
If MPs pass the bill today - and it completes its passage through the Commons without any changes - then the Lords cannot halt its progress a second time
Kate Whannel
Reporting from the House of Commons
Rebecca Wilcox, Dame Esther Rantzen’s daughter, is sitting in the gallery watching on as MPs debate the bill her mother has long been calling for.
She is taking notes and occasionally shaking her head at some of the MPs’ comments.
Veteran broadcaster Rantzen, 86, is terminally ill with cancer and has been in favour of legalising assisted dying.
Image source, House of CommonsConservative MP Kit Malthouse, who co-sponsored the bill, echoes criticism by Lauren Edwards about the House of Lords filibustering the assisted dying bill.
He says that "what's at stake today is our democracy" and that "if this bill falls today, one of the biggest losers will be the standing of this house".
Malthouse goes on to say a vote against the bill is a vote for the status quo of "misery and degradation and cruelty for so many".
He references countries around the world that have successfully operated assisted dying and says it should "not be beyond us" to design a system that would work.
Labour MP Dr Zubir Ahmed speaks of his experience as a medical professional, and says many of his patients have flickered between a "terminal experience" and a "life limiting illness".
He says he is convinced "now more than ever" that the current social and palliative care system is not ready to meet the demands of the bill.
The bill will "not serve" its aims of bringing choice and control for a quick death, he adds.
In the bill, one of the requirements is patients have been diagnosed with six months to live or less. Ahmed says this is "not a good enough marker for proscribing death", and he often can get this wrong himself as conditions change.
"The foundational elements of this bill will create the allure of choice and control but not the agency to pursue either," Ahmed says.
The Labour MP adds that doctors are not adequately trained to detect coercive behaviour in the context of the bill, and says the NHS is "not ready" in its current state for it.
Image source, House of CommonsFather of the House and Conservative MP Edward Leigh is speaking next - he says today's debate is about is "ensuring that the bill that we are debating today leaves the house unamended".
This means it will go to the House of Lords, which will be unable to halt its progress.
Leigh goes on to say that he is in favour of being assisted to die - but he says that currently happens all the time with the help of doctors and nurses in hospices.
He agrees with Prime Minister Andy Burnham's call for improvements to palliative care but does not agree with this bill as he believes "in time it will become an assisted suicide bill".
Leigh is in favour of being assisted to dying in the least amount of pain possible through palliative care.
"I urge you before you vote for this bill at 14:30 BST remember what sort of society you will be creating, not a society that loves life," he concludes.
In the Commons, Labour MP Claire Hazelgrove recounts the story of her mother Ruth who passed away last year from a rare blood cancer, having just turned 61.
Her mother had "access to good palliative care" but Hazelbrove will "never forget seeing her writhing and screaming in pain".
The MP says the current law means her mother could not tell her family what her plan was for the end of her life, and say a goodbye to her family.
She says her mother died alone, and family are unaware if she passed away 11 months ago today or tomorrow.
"My hope, and I know my mum's hope, is that her story can help us choose to end this harmful status quo and see terminally ill adults finally have true choice over their lives and their deaths," Hazelgrove says.
As MPs debate, we've been hearing from readers, who have shared their views on the assisted dying bill.
"Just get and do it! People who are against it don't need to use it and can expressly opt out with a simple declaration that nobody can override - not family or legals. But please don't force the 'suffer to the bitter end'", says Andrew in Gloucester.
Gary says: "It's so sad to see a few politicians vote against a bill that the majority of the public support, and is there to give people in incredible pain to choose when to go."
While TJD in Oxford says "there should be a referendum before a group of unrepresentative MPs make this decision".
"I am totally against this bill. As a Christian and disabled I believe it should be dropped. I wish they would make more efforts to fund palliative treatment," says Ikhlas.
Edwards' speech comes to an end - she is followed by Conservative MP Karen Bradley as MPs move on to the debate portion of the session.
Bradley says voices deserve to be heard and it's important to respect all views.
"So often it's the quiet voices that need to be heard," she says, referencing her previous time as the parliamentary under-secretary for preventing abuse.
She says further amendments to the bill need to be made.
Bradley says she worries that the bill could lead to people being coercively controlled into ending their life, before giving way to a number of MPs, including the bill's former sponsor Kim Leadbeater.
Leadbeater says the bill was amended to ensure professionals involved in assisted dying would receive training and that multiple checks for coercion would be carried out throughout the process of assisted dying.
Bradley later comes back in to say her "fear is for the person that doesn't want to make a fuss" and "the person that feels guilty about the care" they have received.
Harry Farley
Political correspondent
The number of MPs who tried to intervene - to question, to probe Lauren Edwards’ speech - shows just how hotly contested this issue is.
She has faced a number of questions, primarily from those opposed to the bill.
We're in for an emotionally charged debate over the next few hours, ahead of a vote that both sides expect to be close.
I have messaged one of those closely involved in organising supporters of the bill to ask how confident they feel about the result, now they can see how many of their side has turned up.
They reply with a shrug emoji.
Neither side are particularly confident at the moment.
Conservative MP Rebecca Smith says there are a number of palliative care consultants who are not prepared to take part in assisted dying.
She says all three palliative care doctors in her constituency of South West Devon, who work in Plymouth's Derriford Hospital, have said they will leave their profession if the bill is passed.
Edwards responds by saying the bill takes in a range of views in the palliative care community and allows them not to be involved in the process if they do not wish to be.
The Labour MP finishes her speech by quoting Elise Burns, a campaigner for assisted dying who passed away in July.
She says: "I would love peers to look me in the eye and tell me why me and my friends and anyone with terminal illness doesn't deserve to die with dignity and to have the choice to die without pain."
Some MPs are asking Edwards to give way, but she proceeds to deliver her speech to the House.
She says she will "be upset and disappointed" but accept the result if the House of Lords sends the bill back to the Commons with amendments and it is voted down.
But what she "cannot accept" is the "current situation".
Edwards says a small number of unelected peers filibustered legislation that was "supported by this chamber".
"This is not how our democracy is supposed to function," she says.
"We owe it to the people we represent to find a solution to this issue, one way or another, in this parliament."
Image source, UK ParliamentEdwards says today's bill, which she calls a "well designed, safe piece of legislation", has been subject to "hundreds of hours" of scrutiny and amendments made to strengthen its safeguards.
This "doesn't mean that it can't be straightened any further" and will benefit from additional scrutiny.
Democratic Unionist Party MP Gavin Robinson criticises the amount of amendments brought to the previous bill.
He says the bill is "unworkable", to which Edwards responds that she disagrees with the sentiment that amending a bill means it is unworkable.
She adds that she is asking MPs today to send the bill back to the House of Lords so that they can continue their work before it was interrupted.
Conservative MP Alex Shelbrooke says it would "massively strengthen" amendments to the bill to give "committee time to the whole house on the floor of the house".
He asks if she will lobby her own government to give "proper scrutiny" to everybody in this house for committee stage.
Edwards responds by saying the government has promised to remain neutral on the issue, before another Labour MP says 200 hours of consideration was given to this bill, which is "much more" than the standard bill.
"The Lords have had an enormous amount of time as well, so saying there hasn't been enough scrutiny is simply wrong," the MP says.
Edwards comes back in and says she is in no doubt that the bill that was sent to the Lords was "robust" and "expertly drafted" by the office of the parliamentary council, and developed with technical advice from civil servants.
Image source, House of CommonsLabour MP Anna Dixon says there "can be no choice" for individuals to utilise the assisted dying bill until palliative care in the country is "properly funded".
She says an estimated 170,000 people die in the country each year without access to palliative end of life care.
Lauren Edwards says these services "cannot address pain and suffering in all circumstances".
She says "we can and we must improve both palliative care and supported assisted dying".
"We must grasp that opportunity in front of us to create a holistic end of life care system."
Lauren Edwards gives way to fellow Labour MP Meg Hillier.
Hillier asks if Edwards will accept amendments to this bill, as she has brought an "exact same bill" to the Commons despite the bill's House of Lords' sponsor saying there needed to be 77 amendments to "make it safer".
Edwards responds by saying it is not the same bill, as it incorporates two amendments.
She says MPs have "had our conversation in this chamber about this bill" and also as a nation. She says she will be asking members to send the bill back to the Lords so they "can continue their important work of amending and scrutinising legislation".
Another MP raises concerns about peers in the Lords using delay tactics against private members bills, which Edwards agrees sets a "dangerous precedent".
Image source, House of CommonsLabour MP Lauren Edwards, the bill's sponsor, begins by saying the bill will give terminally ill adults "choice, autonomy and dignity" at the end of their lives.
She says a small number of peers in the House of Lords, referring to it as "the other place", had "chosen" to prevent any votes on the bill taking place.
Edwards says this brought the conversations that she and other MPs had been having on the bill to "an abrupt halt", adding that consistent polling has shown strong public support for the bill.
The second reading debate for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is beginning in the House of Commons, ahead of MPs voting later today.
We will be bringing you updates here and you can watch live at the top of this page.
Labour MP Patrick Hurley says he will vote against the assisted dying bill today because "fundamentally, this bill is not safe".
He criticises Labour MP Lauren Edwards, who is sponsoring the bill, for bringing the legislation back in its original form without "improvements" made by peers in the House of Lords.
Hurley says it will have a "disproportionate impact on the vulnerable, the elderly, people who may be subject to coercion".
He adds: "I am aghast this is being brought back in its original form."
The legislation up for debate today is identical to the bill that made it through the House of Commons last year.
The bill allows terminally ill adults to end their life if they:
A doctor would prepare the substance being used to end the patient's life, but the person is required to take it themselves.
During the last parliamentary session, the bill was brought forward by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who brought the bill forward during the last parliamentary session, says MPs "have a duty to restart the process" after it stalled in the House of Lords.
There's "extremely strong" support in the Commons for this legislation, she tells BBC Breakfast, adding that the Lords "cannot block legislation" as unelected politicians.
She pushes back on claims that the bill is too weak, saying she spent "hours and hours" speaking with civil servants and government officials to produce a "workable, very safe piece of legislation".
"It is very solid, it is very sound - that doesn't mean we shouldn't enable the House of Lords to do their job. What we cannot have is an unelected chamber overriding the will of the elected chamber," she says.
Leadbeater adds that the "status quo for terminally ill people is not acceptable" and that the bill is "very strict in its criteria".
Harry Farley
Political correspondent
If MPs vote in favour of the assisted dying bill today it will have cleared a major hurdle.
It won’t be the end of the story. In the weeks and months to come, the bill will still have to pass all the rest of its stages in the House of Commons.
And crucially, if supporters want to stop the House of Lords from blocking it for a second time, the bill must complete its passage through the Commons without any changes.
The fundamentals of this debate have not changed. But what is different this time it is unlikely to end in stasis - as happened when the bill ran out of time in the House of Lords last time.
If opponents win today, the bill will fall.
There might well be future attempts to bring the issue back. But this attempt to change the law will be over.
If those in favour are successful in getting it through the Commons today - and in the months ahead unamended - then it will become law even if the House of Lords does not approve it.
