LONDON (AP) – U.K. lawmakers voted against a bill on Friday that would have allowed adults with terminal illnesses in England and Wales to choose to end their lives.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was turned down after a lengthy four-hour debate in the House of Commons, with a vote tally of 286 against 270. This outcome was unexpected to some, especially considering a similar bill had passed the previous year by a margin of 23 votes.

This vote marks the conclusion of a two-year discussion in Parliament regarding assisted dying. During this period, the House of Commons had supported assisted dying on a couple of occasions, but their support wasn’t sufficient to turn it into law, thanks to delays caused by members of the unelected House of Lords.

The rejected bill had suggested that adults in England and Wales with a prognosis of less than six months to live could request assistance to die, with approval from two doctors and an expert panel required.

In the Commons, many lawmakers shared personal stories both in favor of and against the bill. The government remained neutral on the matter, allowing lawmakers to vote based on personal beliefs rather than party alignment.

A lawmaker who switched her position, Janet Daby, expressed her discomfort with her earlier support, mentioning that “nightmares” about death influenced her decision. She shared that she felt, well, not quite at ease with her previous stance.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham chose not to vote, stating he wished to avoid influencing the discussion unduly.

Critics of the bill labeled it as risky and impractical, raising alarms about potential coercion of vulnerable individuals and inadequate protections for those with disabilities. Dr. Zubir Ahmed, a surgeon and lawmaker, pointed out the uncertainty surrounding doctors’ ability to predict life expectancy accurately.

“Honestly, I have to admit,” he stated, “when I’m asked to determine if someone has six months left, I find myself wrong as often as I’m right.”

Archbishop Richard Moth, the leader of Catholics in England and Wales, condemned the bill as “wrong in principle” and “deeply flawed.” The Archbishop of Canterbury, Sarah Mullally, also voiced her opposition.

Various medical colleges, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists, expressed significant concerns about the bill, emphasizing that there were still numerous unanswered questions regarding the protection of individuals with mental illnesses.

Supporters of “assisted dying,” sometimes labeled as “assisted suicide,” had envisioned this legislation significantly impacting U.K. social policy, akin to the partial legalization of abortion in 1967. The goal was to eliminate the necessity for terminally ill individuals to travel to countries like Switzerland for an assisted death.

Lauren Edwards, who brought the bill back to the Commons, described its rejection as “heartbreaking” but remained hopeful that the matter would gain parliamentary approval in the future.

“Assisted dying will eventually happen here, as it is elsewhere around the globe, though perhaps not as soon as we’d like,” she said. “Today, Parliament missed a critical opportunity. But this issue will resurface because the current law is just too harsh and unjust.”

Other nations where assisted dying is permitted include Australia, Belgium, and Spain, with differing regulations across jurisdictions.