No one would be forced to help with the process of assisted dying against their wishes, under changes approved by MPs.

A bill which would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, expected to die within six months, to seek help to end their own life is currently being considered by Parliament.

The legislation passed its first stage in the House of Commons last November – but since then the details have been pored over and dozens of amendments added by both sides.

On Friday MPs debated further potential changes, which also included preventing medical staff from raising the option of assisted dying with a patient first.

However, MPs ran out of time to vote on more changes, so further debate and voting will take place on 13 June.

That would be followed by a vote on whether to pass the bill as a whole to its next stage or reject it, either on the same day or a future date.

The government is neutral on the bill and MPs have been given a free vote, meaning they can decide based on their conscience rather than having to follow a party line.

The original bill stated that no registered medical practitioner or other health professional would be under any obligation to participate in the process of assisted dying and they could not be discriminated by their employer if they did not wish to do so.

Under a change proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the bill, and approved by MPs, this has been expanded say no one would have to take part in the process, giving protections to any staff who might be involved.

It specifically mentions social care workers and pharmacists as among those covered.

During an emotionally charged – and at times ill-tempered – debate, supporters of the bill argued it had been strengthened by earlier changes.

Opening the proceedings, Leadbeater said many people had “lost loved ones in deeply difficult and traumatic circumstances”.

The MP for Spen Valley added: “Put simply, if we do not vote to change the law, we are essentially saying that the status quo is acceptable.”

But opponents said the bill had been rushed through and needed stronger protections for people who could be vulnerable to coercion.

Conservative MP Rebecca Paul argued there should be a focus on improving end-of-life care, rather than assisted dying.

“[The bill] will harm far more people than it will help,” Paul said.

“And those people who will be harmed are among the most vulnerable in our communities and I’m not willing to accept this collateral damage.”

At points the debate became tetchy, with some criticising how the process had been conducted.

Labour MP Jess Asato accused campaigner and broadcaster Dame Esther Rantzen of being “distasteful and disrespectful” for accusing the bill’s opponents of having “undeclared personal religious beliefs which mean no precautions would satisfy” their concerns.

However, Dame Esther’s daughter, Rebecca Wilcox, told BBC Breakfast she was worried about the “scaremongering”, “blatant lies” and “myths” circulating about the bill.

She said that while she appreciated there were concerns over coercion and how the proposed legislation could affect vulnerable or disabled people, the bill was “full of safeguards”.

Labour former minister Anneliese Dodds was among those to raise fears people could feel under pressure to go through with an assisted death because they do not want to be a “burden”.

Labour MP Dame Meg Hillier argued doctors should not be allowed to raise the option of assisted dying with patients first.

She told the Commons this “presents a serious risk that terminally ill patients already highly vulnerable will feel pressured into ending their lives”.

But Conservative MP Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst, a former surgeon, said “highly trained” medical professionals must be trusted “to have the difficult and complex conversations that they do every day”.

Several MPs raised concerns people with anorexia could be considered terminally ill and eligible for assisted dying if they refuse to eat or drink.

However, Leadbeater argued this risk was “negligible”.

“Not only would someone with severe anorexia be highly unlikely to be assessed to have capacity to make a decision about assisted dying, the other tragic reality is that if a patient was so ill as a result of not eating and drinking for whatever reason, they would die before the process of assisted dying would be able to take place,” she told MPs.

A proposal from Labour MP Naz Shah would amend the bill so an individual would not meet the requirements for an assisted death “solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking”.

Leadbeater indicated she would support this but suggested further changes may be needed to make the proposal workable.

Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill cleared its first parliamentary hurdle by 330 to 275 votes back in November.

Since then, the bill has gone through six months of intense scrutiny by a parliamentary committee and several changes, including removing the need for a High Court judge to sign off each request for an assisted death. Instead, a panel of experts – including a legal professional, psychiatrist and social worker – would oversee the process.

The issue has split Parliament, with strong opinions on both sides.

Those opposed to assisted dying say the mood has altered among MPs, but so far only a handful have said they have changed their minds since November and it would take dozens to block the bill.

Labour MP Jonathan Hinder is the latest to reveal he will no longer support the bill, saying his concerns have “deepened” as it has progressed.

He gave the example of removing the role of a High Court judge as one reason he had changed his mind, adding that more work was needed to make the bill “practicable and safe”.