2nd reading of Assisted Dying Bill - 11 September 2026

The most vocal opposition when the bill was going through the HoL were the disabled. As @Thelnebriati has said, it's not that most of us are against an assisted dying bill full stop, but we'd like one that has genuine safeguards built into it. Every country that has adopted AS, the changes that have been made to the bill since it was passed into law have always been to broaden the scope of what constitutes the criteria for qualification (from say 6 months left to live with a terminal illness to include mental distress and in some places, poverty) and to widen the criteria for who can qualify (to include children in some countries). There has been no instance where regulations have been tightened. That's why we are concerned with ensuring safeguards are in place from the start because in all likelihood, they'll never be put in place once it become legal.

And following Rob Burrow, of course, which was a big story in the UK.

Yes I started a thread about him yesterday and in fact it was reading about him that gave me that information. I am listening to him on a podcast at the moment. He’s remarkably positive at the moment but everyone knows what is coming

Why are people so against having a sound bill that has safeguarding built in? Its not a choice between a badly written bill or nothing. Surely a well written bill is more likely to pass?

In Australia it said that one in three people with motor neuron disease take the assisted dying route, one way or another.

Makes me think of Jai Arrow (Australian rugby league player just retired with MND. I think it's been a big story in Australia). When you're in the public eye like that, it just seems another massive load to bear.

The problem with that is that there’s a sharp difference between people who have a terminal illness and people who are healthy. It tends to be healthy people who are against it most strongly.

I’ve vividly remember that Archbishop Tutu, a very much loved and respected figure, was firmly against assisted dying until he became old and frail himself. He was lucky enough to die a natural death but his opinion completely changed when his circumstances, understanding and life experiences changed.

In Australia it said that one in three people with motor neuron disease take the assisted dying route, one way or another.

Then let them put this in a manifesto and put it to the public. That Labour hasn't had the balls to do this, but instead tried to sneak it via an ill-crafted PMB and now through this unprecedented invoking of the Parliament Act would suggest they're not certain of the public's support.

Those of us you are calling "naysayers" want genuine choices as to how we approach our deaths. It will not be a genuine choice if the only options are assisted suicide or a lottery of underfunded palliative care offerings with perhaps no beds available when we need one.

Many of us naysayers do want assisted dying, but we also want robust safeguarding.

'Naysayers' - it is seriously not being a silly old negative nelly to see very major unintentended and absolutely inevitable, terrible consequences of a badly written, badly considered, rushed through on sentiment law.

I think it the naysayers who don't want a referendum. Everyone knows the general public absolutely support assisted dying. If any party stood on this issue it would be a huge vote winner.

And that's yet another very good reason.

The issue with the “palliative care is insufficient” argument is the misguided belief that despite palliative care being poorly done, messy, painful, often inadequate, postcode lottery-affected and generally typically demonstrative of the usual NHS failings, somehow Assisted Dying won’t also be poorly done, messy, painful, often inadequate, postcode lottery-affected and generally typically demonstrative of the usual NHS failings.

Of course it will. It will be just as much of a shit show. Because it’s the NHS.

Well I think you're terribly naive. It's much easier to coerce a woman to do something legal and culturally normal, than something deemed culturally abnormal. If we make assisted suicide a cultural norm, (which currently, thank goodness, it isn't), then it'll be far easier to coerce vulnerable women to do it.

Do you not understand the boiling frog analogy?? Try to.

Isn't that an argument for inproved palliative care?

The problem is, from what I’ve read of people who have experienced the death of their loved ones and from palliative care professionals, that the reality is different from the ideal i.e. what you call “the argument“.

Your assertion assumes that improvements in end of life care are possible in all cases. But, unfortunately, the reality of many people’s decline is that in too many, cases there is no palliative care that can take away the pain and suffering that some people have to endure as they die.

I’m not saying murder I’m saying coerced suicide. I personally think it would be far easier, and as people say is happening today, to get an abused woman to kill herself than to get her to convince several medical professionals that she wants to die even though she has no terminal disease. I think an abusive man would get lots of sympathy if his ‘crazy wife’ finally killed herself tbh.

I don’t think assisted dying should be taken off the table because it potentially gives abusers another tool. They already have plenty that are much easier to implement.

I agree the likelihood the six months requirement will be extended. Or certain conditions regardless of length of life expected without intervention.

The difference is that slipping someone suicide pills is illegal. If caught, he's looking at prison. That's a deterrent.

Whereas the scenario many are suggesting (which is not outlandish at all), is an abusive man convincing a woman to "choose" assisted dying. Not only would he not go to prison, he'd probably get lots of sympathy and support from friends and family.

Like I said, I think you'd actually see femicide rates dropping as this would be so much easier than knifing your wife.

Also worth looking at the infamous Liverpool Care Pathway, which began as a very good idea, with very good principles, high quality end of care planning intended to improve the comfort of those actually in the process of dying. It rapidly became overused, overextended, mission-crept, and distorted in the hands of others. It was in the end used to actively kill, with many questions coming in about why patients were moved on to the pathway, including bed blocking and financial incentives. Phased out in 2013, many died who should not have done, and died in distress.

Isn't that an argument for inproved palliative care?

Prior to the Shipman case pain relief (and subsequent life ending) was managed more emphatically so we need to go back to managing terminal illnesses well.

Kathleen Stock has interesting and informative analysis on the Bill. One factor is how would this be managed in the NHS, would you have "assisted dying" wards? Upstairs for treatment to prolong life and lower ground for assisted dying. Or special units that deal with this..dotted around the country?

Kathleen says that it will fundamentally change society's approach to longterm care. Assisted dying is presented as a "good thing to end suffering" , if that's the case then it follows that it should be widely encouraged, but who decides on a level if "suffering".

Would all Dr's agree to perform assisted dying or be forced? How many legal challenges do we think will happen? After a death (from grieving relatives) or from those that would like the right under under legislation but are currently excluded? Such as mental health conditions.

Dementia would be excluded because a Dr has to confirm death would occur within 6 months which isn't possible for dementia and the person would not be able to consent.

I get why people want it but I can't see how this Bill, that was rushed through is the answer.

These abusers are doing it already. Many "suicides" of women are actually femicides. This just gets them a way to distance themselves from the deed.

I completely agree with you that we, as a society, need a grown up discussion about death and dying, about funding for old age and social care, about palliative care and yes, about assisted dying. But we haven't had that opportunity yet, and still this bill is being foisted on us. It was in no one's manifesto; there has been no referendum on it; no public consultation; it's simply being offered to us as a fait accompli. And it's a terrible bill. I'm not opposed to the principle of AS, but I am opposed to this bill which starts at the lower end of the slippery slope, disregarding what most of us assume would be safeguards put in place. And that is not democracy in action.

If these abusers are so abusive they can coerce a person to say they want assisted dying then surely they’re abusive enough that they can already get them to write a suicide note and take some pills? I would’ve thought that would be easier than using their abusive nature to get another person to convince several doctors and medical staff that they want to die of their own free will?

tbh I can imagine a completely non-coercive scenario where I’m staring at all my life’s savings being spent on me looking at 4 walls in a care home until I die naturally or me being put to sleep and my grandchildren benefitting from that money instead. Do we even die naturally anymore?

I think we need a proper adult conversation about death and dying and you can’t have it if people are coming up with fairly outlandish scenarios or finding the worst possible cases from other countries and insisting we would do exactly the same given half the chance.

How easy is it to amend something that has been debated and passed? Of course I know what they’re there for 🙄, but the idea expressed in the post I was replying to “let it pass, and if things go bad just amend it” is not exactly as easy as parliament works, is it?

You wouldn’t be able to get assisted dying for dementia because you wouldn’t have capacity to consent to it. That’s my understanding anyway.

I am genuinely uncomfortable with state sanctioned death in any form. Or any doctor being forced/encouraged to end a life.

No one is guarenteed a quick, painless ending, even those who choose assisted suicide.

And countries like Canada have shown how quickly the conversation changes from 'mercy' to 'wouldn't it be better if these expensive people/drains just weren't here anymore?'