2nd reading of Assisted Dying Bill - 11 September 2026

@Bunnyofhope “I want this to pass in it's current form and quickly.”

The current form isn’t broad enough, but it’s a start.

@IwantToRetire What is the alternative?

Many people in the UK suffer at the end of life because the palliative care system is under severe strain and failing to reach everyone who needs it.

'Clearly you aren't aware that most of those arguing against the Bill in its current form are those with disabilities, and long term illnesses.'

Thank you for saying this IwantToRetire.

But the vulnerable don’t have the right to stop everyone else from wanting it.

Some people are against abortion in the UK. It doesn’t mean they should stop other women having access to one.

6ate9, please go back and read my previous post, which you quoted and agreed with.

Do you agree then with what I said in my previous post at 20.25?

You said you are pro assisted dying but against the bill as it stands.

I think that we need to learn the lessons from MAID (it definitely has issues) and that we need to listen to the concerns of vulnerable people to ensure that there is robust safeguarding in place.

I don't personally like comparing assisted dying and abortion, I think that they are very different things.

The alternative (or at least should be done well before we bring in government funded assisted suicide) is to have properly funded palliative care that is evenly available to everyone across the country.

Thanks for answering. The law in Canada asks for explicit voluntary consent. There is safeguarding in place.

There are not enough nurses to deliver palliative care to everyone who needs it.

Funnily enough, I think it’s the single most important reason.

I would like the option of assisted dying for myself, but I’d willingly forgo that option if it means there is never a case where a vulnerable person is killed as part of coercion, exploitation, or criminal intent.

I'm worried the bill risks taking away some people's choice to live, if they end up coerced or otherwise feel they ought to go for assisted dying when they don't really want to. That's a worse consequence, for me, than preventing some other people's choice to die.

I have read reports about MAID that have resulted in me seriously questioning the safeguarding. I don't think it is anywhere near robust enough.

I would be a lot happier if the government had included this policy in their election manifesto, had some sort of indication of support amongst the general population and were not using an obscure parliamentary process to force the bill through without scrutiny.

I'd also be a lot happier if MP's didn't appear on TV telling us that they are right to push the legislation through because they have a 'mandate from the people', implying that somehow this means they can avoid scrutiny.

So, yes to having a sensible discussion about assisted dying but no to using arcane procedure to bypass the scrutiny of the upper house.

I'm not entirely following the argument that my desire for something that may cause unnecessary loss of life in vulnerable people should trump their right to be protected. Does this mean that we should legalize class A drugs because some people want them so vulnerable people should just suck it up?

I want to have the choice. It's already so restrictive that I cant see it being abused by anyone. Im furious that the Lords have blocked this. It's outrageous.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 want it to be too robust!

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

[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

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’.