2nd reading of Assisted Dying Bill - 11 September 2026

[IwantToRetire]

Write to your MP - Share the MRP polling and ask them to oppose the assisted dying Bill

Despite its many serious flaws being repeatedly exposed in the House of Lords in the previous session and the ongoing warnings of medical Royal Colleges and groups representing vulnerable people, the assisted dying Bill has been reintroduced to Parliament by Lauren Edwards MP.

Assisted death regimes across the world bring with them an inherent risk of grave harm to vulnerable women. The Other Half and other campaigners, academics and experts have highlighted this risk consistently, and it is profoundly frustrating that our concerns have so far fallen on deaf ears, with Lauren Edwards reintroducing essentially the same Bill as the one which failed to pass in the previous parliamentary session.

By introducing a virtually identical Bill, Lauren Edwards has paved the way for the Bill to pass through unamended, and for the Parliament Acts to be used in order to bypass scrutiny from the House of Lords and for the Bill to become law with its flaws intact.

Polling conducted on behalf of The Other Half has shown that the public overwhelmingly does not view this Bill as a priority for MPs, and the new Prime Minister has also been clear that addressing existing failings in palliative and social care should take precedence over any consideration of assisted dying.

There are specific dangers in the Bill, highlighted in the previous parliamentary session, which Lauren Edwards has chosen not to address: these include the removal of coronial investigation, the lack of a requirement for families to be informed about an assisted dying application, and the omission of specific protections for domestic abuse victims/survivors.

Only 12 MPs need to change their minds from how they voted in the previous parliamentary session for the new Bill to fail. We can win and make sure this Bill is thrown out, with your help.

We are asking you to write to your MP to highlight your concerns and ask them to make sure that Lauren Edwards’ new assisted dying Bill is stopped at Second Reading on 11 September.

Every vote will count, and it takes just 60 seconds to contact your MP. Please take action today.

https://www.writeonad.theotherhalf.uk/
(Not sure how effective it is to use a web generated standard letter.)

See more about The Other Half https://theotherhalf.uk/

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2026-27
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-12181/

On that subject, why did the Leadbeater committee vote down an amendment that would have protected palliative care facilities from losing public funding if the facility opted-out of providing assisted suicide?

The Association for Palliative Medicine released a statement objecting to Kit Malthouse's monstrous remark, but as far as I know, the committee ignored the statement.

The APM strongly disagrees with the remarks of the Rt Hon Kit Malthouse MP, who, on 18th March 2025, in the Committee stage of this Bill, asked whether hospices should “still be able to deny what is a legal service, if they are in receipt of public funds.”

apmonline.org/wp-content/uploads/APM-Member-Communication-April-2025.pdf

I don't get your point at all. I've re-read it multiple times and it still seems to be 'the world isn't perfect and bad things happen, so why bother?'.

Seriously, why is that an argument for making it easier? Gosh, the world isn't perfect and some people have been murdered, so let's throw up our hands and knowingly and deliberately make it worse by making it legal to kill a few thousand more people? How does that work?

I find the tactics of the "pro" side in the Commons to be quite analogous to #nodebate. The same refusal to even discuss compromise, the smearing of people who opposed it as 'religious fanatics' or 'happy yo watch ppl die in agony' ie bad awful ppl whose arguments should be dismissed off the bat, a refusal to acknowledge that harm could be inflicted on vulnerable ppl, an insistence that they and only they are on the RSOH

It's not a safeguard at all. A basic part of the job for care workers and nurses is persuading confused and scared people to take their medication. People have the legal right to decline medication, but does Nurse Smith want to deal with the paperwork when Mrs Baker's long-term medical condition avoidably deteriorates because she refused her lunchtime medication? Does she want to deal with Mrs Baker's son asking why his mother was allowed to refuse her medication? (Which is exactly how he will phrase it.)

Hell no. And that's why Nurse Smith has subconsciously developed a bedside manner on the drugs round that will have Mrs Baker picking up that pot of medication and downing it with the proffered drink without a thought.

Yes, me too.

Yes, I read a brilliant essay about the shady history (which some posters are evidently unaware of) of the assisted suicide movement in the UK. I can’t find it now! It was on one of the FWR threads.

I don't know if this is the same article but I read this recently in the Critic

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-dark-past-of-dignity-in-dying/

Absolutely. And before the trans #nodebate I might have been one of those people. But it opened my eyes to the need to thinking things through properly, safeguarding the vulnerable and not allowing emotional manipulation to get in the way of such safeguarding, and how legislation can have some pretty serious consequences years later when the examples you use are how things come to pass.

My point is to those who think its safer now without the bill isn't true real. At least my choicd isn't being removed from me becuase some people think the way things are today us better and safer and people sre being coerced which simply isnt true. It happens regardless.

So don’t you think we should stop people coercing the vulnerable into their deaths before it is made easier?! How would making this easier to do be a good thing simply because it allows you to get what you want?

Some people are dying when they shouldn't, so we should deliberately kill more people.

Well, hedgehogs are endangered, in part because drivers accidentally run them over and in part because of young sociopaths killing them deliberately in defiance of laws against animal cruelty. Seeing as we're struggling to preserve the species, why don't we go the whole hog and deliberately drive the entire species to extinction?

Same reasoning, after all.

It’s not but covers very similar ground. This was a podcast and article.

https://otherhalforg.substack.com/p/the-killers ?

Well it shouldn't be used as a reason as to why not having a bill is right. And you will never have a perfect solution, all the safeguards in place now and its not perfect is it. But taking a choice away from me, to decide on my life and my body is wrong.

do You think we should design all laws around people's personal preferences?

I'm not allowed to drive because I haven't passed my test. I know how to though and not being able to makes my life difficult. Why shouldn't I be allowed to drive anyway? Sure I might hurt some people but what about my personal preferences? A few accidents to other ppl are a price it's worth paying for my freedom right?

The collateral damage already exists - think of all the painful suicides and that ill or aged people experience torture for weeks, months, or years. Curious why you keep ignoring that.

I believe firmly that the damage will be lessened once we flip the current status quo. I.e. once we finally choose the lesser of two.

Thank you 🙏

"I am of the view that just one case of someone being coerced would indicate it isn’t an appropriate system."

Okay, I understand. And I am of the view that just one case of torturing someone for weeks (or longer) justifies that our current system of refusing to end their life immediately, is immoral.

We can look at numbers and volume of pain and suffering caused to figure out the balance and which side causes less pain but ultimately: it's no different to the argument for abortion.

My body, my choice. If I can kill a foetus via a doctor, I have a human right to die painlessly.

You made some excellent points about the incompetence of a lot of staff (across many industries) and failures in policy - too many 'managers' and not enough front-line staff.. all about money.. I'm digressing.. but that's fancy wrapping (no disrespect). It's hard keeping people alive, it isn't hard killing someone. It's one injection.

We also keep forgetting something. The person who wants to die will not care any more if things go / went wrong. You're thinking about this from the 'selfish' perspective again: yours. And that's understandable. But as I said right from the start: grief is selfish. The person who wanted to die is no longer suffering. That's all that matters.

I get you - what led you to think that? Not to put you on the spot, I haven't read much in to this, so just curious how bad it can be.

I am not sure everyone who supports assisted dying does take finances into account. Governments certainly do but that is their role to mange finances that covers costs for the population’s healthcare

from my understanding while the term may have be used by supporters of eugenics movement later in there were people in support of assisted dying that rejected this movement

this also appears to tie in when medical science progressed at such an astonishing pace that life expectancy jumped considerably along with being able to keep people alive longer with medical intervention who were terminally ill or very frail, mostly older and in very poor health

people should absolutely have the right to choose (with monitoring around. this) when they die and for this to be pain free and peaceful

I support the idea of assisted dying. I did not support this bill.
I am annoyed that rather than dealing with the objections of the medical profession and disability advocates it was brought back in an identical form to take advantage of legislation that would cut out the Lords.

My personal view is that there needs to be cross party support for a commission to review how best to set this up and a properly drafted bill. This is too important for it to be passed on emotional calls to conscience. We would be giving the state the legal power to end someone’s life- it should not be rushed into.

This goes beyond matters of indvidual choice. People always have the choice of death by their own hand if they wish. Involving the state is quite another matter.

This.

The idea needs thorough and careful and proper consideration. This particular bill should not have gone through and thank God it didn't.

Although even just a quick read on the threads here demonstrates the underlying reasons and issues that appear at speed. It's why really, while I think it should be an option for people, I'm not certain it is ever something that this country should be trusted with.

It used to be accepted practice that the administration of pain relief could lead to an earlier death and that this was acceptable if a patient was in agony. As someone said up thread this changed with Shipman, but I wonder if it has disappeared completely? If so it is this that should be reintroduced in my opinion rather than court procedures and two doctors and so on with all the dangers of scope creep.

Given that there were over 100 deaths investigated at the Gosport War Memorial hospital who were believed to have died prematurely after the medical notes advised staff to "make patient comfortable", probably not

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dnydzk552o