2nd reading of Assisted Dying Bill - 11 September 2026

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.

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

@NotBadConsidering

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

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

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

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

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'.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? 🤔

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.

@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.

@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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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?

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".

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

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

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?