2nd reading of Assisted Dying Bill - 11 September 2026

Just like the TWAW demands on women giving up their rights because transwomen want some of those same things, we do have a system whereby competing rights get weighed and prioritised. That's what the HoL were trying to do. They weren't trying to kill the bill, but to ensure that when it was put before Parliament that it did not have the safeguarding holes in it that would literally kill people in the vulnerable group who otherwise would not choose to die. The bill that is currently coming before Parliament has none of these safeguards.

@SylvanMoon “But since you think we should kill off people with complex health needs because we can't afford them, then I doubt you'll be concerned about anyone other than yourself.”

I was stating facts. I would like assisted dying to be available in case I want it. I don’t care what everyone else does. It’s an individual choice.

@BabooshkaHaHa Even without identifiable coercion, I wonder about the cultural shift that may occur—which is harder to predict—where people feel they’re expected to not ‘hang on’ or seeing it as the standard choice.

Yes, this is what concerns me. The Law of Unintended Consequences, combined with not being able to put the genie back in the bottle once it is out.

You obviously have not read the bill nor listened to any of the very genuine safeguarding concerns raised in the HoL over it. If you have, and you have any sense that we are not just autonomous individuals whose decisions don't affect anyone other than ourselves (which is pretty much what the TRAs claim about all their pervy actions), then you will be concerned that vulnerable individuals can be at risk of either subtle or direct coercion. This isn't scaremongering, but has happened in Canada under MAID. It's also been shown that where assisted dying has been legalised, that the definitions and restrictions have never been tightened. Instead, they become more and more broad and elastic.
But since you think we should kill off people with complex health needs because we can't afford them, then I doubt you'll be concerned about anyone other than yourself.

Exactly.

“People really want this so let’s rush through bad law and not fully appreciate the consequences of what we are doing.”

Where have we seen that before? 🤔

I would be fine if we had similar to MAID.

I want the option to end my life by assisted dying when I’ve had enough of life. Obviously I have the choice to kill myself already, but if I got something like dementia I want assisted dying.

Well yes, that's exactly what it opens the door to. Unless planned and thought through one hell of a lot more carefully than this, properly mandated and researched, led on by experts and not led by passionate sentiment. AND as part of proper choice and options in terms of end of life care.

Badly planned, badly written law creates one hell of a lot of unintended consequences, and these are easily foreseeable at present. The consequences of this could be terrible. That it would work for some does not make terrible consequences for others just worthwhile collateral damage. God knows on FWR we spend a fuckton of time explaining that in other contexts.

This is a highly emotive and contentious issue, and needs thorough debate and working through.

Ethically I have no objection to people making this choice for themselves—the issue is how we can be confident and ensure that it is the person’s choice.

Even without identifiable coercion, I wonder about the cultural shift that may occur—which is harder to predict—where people feel they’re expected to not ‘hang on’ or seeing it as the standard choice.

If you can create a piece of legislation that guarantees this, and isn’t at risk of devolving into Canada’s MAID, where depressed 18 year olds, or women with BPD, or disabled children who have reached 18 aren’t candidates, go for it, then we can agree.

We are all going to die. Let people choose how and when!

Realistically, that will last about 5 minutes once it's in law. The goal posts will be moved very quickly to be a lot more 'inclusive', based on 'if that person has the option it cannot be legal to deny it to me too'.

I think that the 'Mrs B' case in Canada is worth reading about.

No one is going to kill vulnerable people against their will!!

So the terminally ill group of people having the choice to die trumps the right of vulnerable people to not die against their will?

@NotBadConsidering

It should be a choice for every person over the age of 18. Not one should stop it!!

Yes, as they are terminally ill. They should have the choice.

But you are saying one group of people should trump another group of people.

You’re just saying the terminally ill group of people should trump the vulnerable.

People need to face facts. The UK has an increasing elderly population with more complex health needs, a massive carer shortage and an ongoing shortage of nurses.

Give people the option to have this ‘new death service’.

[Granny, thinking] That doctor says I only have 6 more months to live. I don't seem to do much in this home, no one visits me and it's costing £1,500 a week. That £36,000 would go a long way to getting little Jimmy a deposit on his first house.

No pressure then

I don’t want it to be too robust!

I would like it to be accessible to anyone over 18 who wants it.

If by "restrictive" you mean that the bill in its current state would allow for someone asking to kill themselves to be "interviewed" via zoom. In an interview where someone could possibly be off-camera threatening them to say the right words. That's only one of the many many safeguarding issues the HOL tried to get rectified, which were treated by the bill's advocates as "filibustering".

I don't think that the terminally ill and vulnerable groups are mutually exclusive. Many people will be in both groups.

I would also consider those with long-term, horrific physical issues as vulnerable. Take someone paralysed from the neck down, they are definitely vulnerable. One person with such an injury might want to keep on living, while another could wish for assisted suicide. The former, as a vulnerable person, could be easily pressured and coerced by others that they are 'burdensome'. We need to safeguard the former, while allowing a dignified assisted death for the latter. This is why the safeguarding must be robust.

So therefore we should enlist doctors to kill us off???? Many of the hospices that are having to close beds are doing so not because they can't recruit nurses, but because they can't fund the care for the people occupying the beds. Hospices should be 100% funded by the state, not charities where we have potluck postcode lotteries as to their availability. The proposal in this Assisted Dying Bill is for the administration of the lethal drugs to be done by doctors and fully funded by the state. So funding is going to be needed -- either created somehow or taken from something existing. And since palliative care is not being funded yet, I would suggest it should have priority over this new death service.

You have to have less than 6 months left to live to be eligible.

We will have to agree to disagree. One group of people (the vulnerable) should not trump what another group (the terminally ill) want in life.