2nd reading of Assisted Dying Bill - 11 September 2026

God I hope it passes. Thanks for the reminder to write to my MP @IwantToRetire

Genuine question: what do you think parliament's are there to do if not make and amend legislation?

Another thing already happening in the UK is financial abuse of older people, it is the second most common form of abuse for this age group (after neglect) and a study in America found it affects twice as many older women than older men. Half of cases of financial abuse in the U.K. is carried out by adult sons or daughters

https://www.fincap.org.uk/en/reviews/the-extent-and-nature-of-financial-abuse-among-older-people

https://www.ourwatch.org.uk/crime-prevention/reducing-risk-within-communities/reducing-loneliness-and-vulnerability/financial

Assisted dying legislation will make this situation worse.

its not so much “we need a balanced view that will not bankrupt the country” as @WomensSports said up thread.

It is the thought in people’s minds already up and down the country: my mum Mrs X has a nice house and doesn’t need it much, we are struggling in our small place. Better if we had it. Mrs X is spending money on having a carer and gardener and we need it for X.

its already a common train of thought that older people, who have possibly worked hard and saved to have retirement funds and a mortgage free house, should move over now as the generation below needs it.

Grandma is not stupid, but often does have difficulty thinking for herself if there is subtle or not so subtle coercion or they have a cognitive impairment. Then the argument is “this is what mum would have wanted”.

With assisted dying, the person can be supported to end their life before questions maybe are raised to police and adult safeguarding, the court of protection can’t consider the situation and their best interests- they are already gone.

@WomensSports the comments warning about assisted dying are not misogynistic and ageist. The assisted dying law would strengthen and legalise misogyny and ageism in our society.

If it goes through they can amend it if any issues arise.

But this doesn’t happen with legislation. You can’t just “tweak” laws easily. And it shouldn’t be possible either. Otherwise every time a new government has a majority they could just amend laws to suit them. It’s better to debate everything first rather than “we’ll fix it later if problem arise.”

Look at all the issues that arise once the genie is out of the bottle. The GRA, surrogacy laws, as examples.

The most vulnerable in this situation are the people who are constantly suffering with painful conditions that medical care can’t do enough to help.

Turning off life support and actively injecting someone to kill them are not at all the same thing, neither morally equivalent nor do they have the same scope for abuse.

This should be obvious.

But the NHS already makes decisions like this without this bill. People can’t be left on life support indefinitely, it’s preposterous to think that we can safeguard everyone from every mistake or preserve life indefinitely “just in case”. Look at the example of the young woman a couple of years ago who worked in KFC and tried to end her life, there was a plan to turn off the life support, she was declared brain dead, and then she woke up. So the current law already doesn’t protect every vulnerable person and medics already have influence in the courts over life and death where life support is involved- and the patient in question gets no choice as that would be impossible. But no one sane is campaigning that everyone on life support should be left on it indefinitely just in case, or that one misjudged death is one too many. We need a balanced view that doesn’t bankrupt the country and works for the majority instead of whipping people up into hysteria due to a misogynistic infantilising view of older women that suits one political narrative.
The grandma dramatisation upthread was misogynistic ageist and infantilising, for example. Grandma is not stupid, she can think for herself.
Better palliative care is not the solution. People seem to have a fantastical view of palliative care that it’s possible in all cases to provide a pain free comfortable death for all if we just threw more money at it. Farrah Fawcett had the best care in the world. I watched the documentary she made. She died in agony from breast cancer anyway. She showed the world. Palliative care isn’t a magic wand any more than doctors are.
If the legislation doesn’t go through the government will decide there’s no public appetite for it. If it goes through they can amend it if any issues arise.

The "six months to live" thing is no safeguard at all. All they'd need to do is widen that to include possible suicide and poof, safeguard is gone.

The abusive man gets his healthy mother to sign a form "I am likely to commit suicide within six months" and that makes her eligible for assisted dying. Job done, state assisted murder.

When have we seen the threat of potential suicide used to justify harmful "healthcare" before??

I'm amazed that some of the same people who are very pro assisted dying would never dream of voting for capital punishment. They can't see any parallels at all, because the illusion of "choice" is so obfuscating.

What are the main objections to capital punishment? Firstly that everyone has a right to life. Secondly that there can be miscarriages of justice (in other words, mistakes can be made) and once someone is dead, there's no reversing that.

The same objections surely apply. Mistakes can be made, and there's no reversing it once some is dead. Doctors can misdiagnose terminal illnesses, or fail to predict some alleviating of symptoms. People can be coerced, and the coercion is not noticed. The patient herself might have changed her mind. But once she's dead, there's no reversing that.

There's also the absolutely chilling and totally inevitable cultural shift that someone upthread has already described. It is inevitable that so many women would feel guilty for not choosing to die. It would be so so easy for abusive men to get their wives and mothers to "choose" death. I think we'd even see the murder rate go down as a result. Edit to add - and some myopic politicians would even hail this as a good thing! What a brave new world.

In my job I come across people who have been given NHS fast track fully funded care as a doctor has judged they have only a week to live, who then rally and live on for years, the full NHS funding gets removed and the council starts funding the care again.
I also regularly hear from people who were given a prognosis of 6 months, 12 months, who against expectations have several more years of life and sometimes improvement of symptoms.
Doctors are unable to reliably diagnose people with having 6 months to live.
And people with life limiting conditions vary how they feel about life, one day feeling there is no hope, another day feeling that there is a lot to live for.
Even without coercion I feel there is too much that is subjective about a doctors recommendations or a persons feelings about dying and I think the consequences for society would be disastrous if this is legalised.

I'm sure I recall from a previous thread it being asserted that in countries where such legislation has gone ahead (Canada?), further amendments to the the Act have reduced original safeguards. Surely this is the slippery slope of all slippery slopes?

Already in the 'it should be my choice' reason, the 'there are people 'we' can't afford (those people obviously being not among worthwhile people) to sustain life for' has crept in. In just a few posts.

If that doesn't illustrate one of the very major issues then what does?

What are the risks of this becoming the 'answer' to perceived expensive people, such as the elderly bedblocking in hospitals due to low resources, people with challenging and expensive social care needs, kids who need expensive schooling placements due to SEND, people who have become too disabled or ill to work for a living and would need benefits?

As with the 'trans' issue, it's all about separating the world into the rightful kind of people and the dross kind of people, and the choices of the right kind of person mean what happens to the dross kind of people doesn't need to be ethical or cared about because it's not like they're properly human or anything. It's sociopathic.

Belief systems like this are what make me absolutely determined that this bill is a terrible idea, and make me seriously wonder whether it will ever be possible to have such a bill at all in any circumstances.

If assisted dying was available, would I take advantage of it? Quite possibly. Do I think it should be legalised? No. Does that make sense? It does to me.

I can't help thinking of some of the AIBU threads, where a woman says "AIBU to object to this (behaviour of partner or other relatives)?"

Of course a lot of those threads are six-of-one kind of situations, but a few are clear cheekyfuckery or even outright abuse.

The other posters can see this, and are horrified, but she isn't sure. She thinks she may be being unreasonable. It's the boiled frog thing, she's so used to being bottom of the heap that she can barely see it for what it is.

And then there are the other posters. The nasty sanctimonious doormats for whom self-assertion is the ultimate crime in a woman, especially where her family is concerned.

Emotional blackmail is very powerful. So is emotional abuse.

The pressure on care services and the high cost of care are reasons to have more robust safeguards in the Bill, not fewer.

I am wondering if the suggestion that only two questions are needed (Are you over 18? Do you want to die?) is sincere. I am wondering if some of these responses are extracting the urine.

You obviously missed the last important part of SylvanMoon’s post:

Saying that allowing state-sponsored assisted suicide with little to no guardrails isn't really that much different than saying that the state should also sponsor "trans affirming hormones and surgeries" for everyone because "it's an individual choice"

Let the government support everyone to medically transition eh? It’s selfish to stop it? It’s their individual choice? Doesn’t matter if vulnerable people get caught up in it? Or surrogacy. Let’s just let people buy women’s bodies for 9 months. And buy a baby. Who am I to stop such “individual choice”?

Yes, we don’t just let people do whatever they want if it has consequences for others, particularly the vulnerable in society. That’s not a controversial take, it’s not “selfish”. It’s called safeguarding.

I have no issues with people who have horrendous suffering and horrible terminal diseases ending their own lives as an individual choice. I just do not want to see a failure of safeguarding with poor legislation. It is inevitable, 100% inevitable, that if there is a loophole, someone vulnerable will be killed where they shouldn’t. I absolutely believe that people’s individual choice should be curtailed to prevent such an occurrence, in the same way my individual choice to drive at 150 miles/hr should be curtailed to prevent the occurrence of someone dying in a car crash when they shouldn’t.

In the same way that you could then say that people opposed to giving any child wrong-sex hormones or puberty blockers or having healthy breasts or penises removed are "selfish" because they are stopping these children from having a choice. What's the difference?

You could say people who are against assisted dying are selfish. They are stopping other people from having a choice.

You obviously have not followed what's been happening in Canada under their MAID programme.

You don't care what everyone else does. Fine. But that's admitting that you're selfish. Many of us do care that our relatives, neighbours and even people we've never met are protected from untimely death. It's not just an individual choice when the state takes control with a process that is full of safeguarding holes. It's selfish to say that we're fine with an abused woman being pushed into committing suicide by her abuser, or an elderly grandmother being killed prematurely because her relatives want a bigger inheritance and don't want to spend it on carehome fees.
Saying that allowing state-sponsored assisted suicide with little to no guardrails isn't really that much different than saying that the state should also sponsor "trans affirming hormones and surgeries" for everyone because "it's an individual choice".

but if I got something like dementia I want assisted dying.

I'm sure lots of us would, me included. But MAID as it stands means other cases are caught up in it. Bereaved people. People with no social support.

https://blogs.bmj.com/spcare/2025/10/02/canadas-shortcut-to-death-how-assisted-dying-fails-our-most-vulnerable/

This is Canada’s plan for 2027:

You do not need to have a fatal or terminal condition to be eligible for medical assistance in dying.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-services-benefits/medical-assistance-dying.html

Will the UK’s legislation prevent this slide towards depressed 18 year olds seeking MAID?

Palliative care cannot take away the fact that huge numbers of people suffer in terrible pain for far too long before death. In many cases there is nothing that can be done to prevent this. We literally don't hesitate to say that putting a terminally ill pet to sleep is 'the kindest thing' but we allow humans to suffer.

The numbers of people damaged by unnecessary suffering or seeing their loved ones suffer outweigh the small numbers of potential cases where someone is coerced into choosing euthanasia. If it's only available to those who are already life limited it's not like we are offering it to healthy people who are missing a long happy life.

It's not an individual choice if there are instances of people being euthanised after they have changed their mind and withdrawn their consent (as per the Mrs B case).

The terminally ill should trump everyone else as they are probably going to die first. They would have less than 6 months to live.