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/

because who wants to still be alive if needing palliative care?

This is very odd. Do you not know anyone, or haven’t heard of anyone who has had a terminal cancer diagnosis who wants care to get them well enough and comfortable enough to get a bit more time? To make a wedding? Or a birth?

Palliative care isn’t just a syringe driver full of morphine to ease the last few days. Palliative care can last months to years for a terminal diagnosis. Many people want to still be alive while receiving palliative care.

The people who disagree with assisted dying are worried for those who would not make this choice voluntarily but who may be persuaded to it by those around them, who know 'best', or who have reason on their side: you are ill and old (and costing money - but that will never be said) and you have had a good life; leave us with good memories of your death rather than harrowing ones. Gaslighting is the modern term for this and it is a powerful tool and could be in the hands of relatives and carers who may have a person's best interests at heart - though why dying earlier is better than later, I am not sure - but may not. The safeguards in this bill are not strict enough, which is why the Lords did their constitutional job and threw it out (and it would be a constitutional aberration to push this bill through using the Parliament Act because it's not a government bill and it is not obviously financial - though money comes into its premises in lots of ways). It should be very, very difficult to do this and it is not. So, many will oppose, not for themselves but for the old woman down the road who is a bit forgetful, for the homeless man on the street who is not quite all there because he is addled with drugs, for the gran in an expensive carehome, eating up her relatives' inheritance (which they think is theirs). They cannot speak for themselves, so others must speak for them.
That 60% of respondents apparently say they agree with assisted dying is worrying - and I wonder what they were asked and what the exact wording was.

61% of people want this bill introduced, and the older you are, the more likely you are to support it. The Lords, driven primarily by the religious right, introduced wrecking amendments, and it’s a shame that Labour didn’t back it. I hope it passes this time. The most annoying thing is that most of the people who oppose it oppose it for religious reasons but instead of saying they are against it in principle, they pretend they have specific objections to this particular bill.

So your solution to this is to kill off all the old people? Societies have done this in the past. Most of us don't want to do this - especially if it is us. How about investing in palliative care and end of life care instead? It would provide jobs and boost the economy.

No, one shouldn't stop other people having abortions because one doesn't agree with it (under certain circumstances) but with assisted dying the problem is more nuanced. Actually, the abortion issue isn't far away from this one and the original legislation had safeguards to at least try to stop women being coerced into having an abortion - though that's now out of the window with decriminalisation up until birth (you could always have an abortion up to term for good reasons e.g. malformation of the child incompatible with life, death of the baby, need for medical care of the mother - with care for the baby to give it the best chance of surviving early delivery - so this legislation was perniciously unnecessary). The Assisted Dying Bill appears to have no proper safeguards and those in the original Bill were taken out. Not for nothing were 1200 amendments lodged and the Lords did a good job stopping bad legislation - which is what they are there for.
I don't have the right to stop you deciding on assisted dying. I do have the right to protest on behalf of the vulnerable who may be coerced into dying before they want - and demand stringent safeguards to protect them.

Well, there's an investment opportunity. Train more nurses, open more hospices. A boost to the economy in workers paying tax and hospices buying supplies. The mindset that spending money on palliative care brings no economic benefit is nonsense. All investment in job creation will bring benefits. I am not of the ilk that thinks government jobs are non-jobs.

The vulnerable include those with terminal illnesses who may not wish to die sooner than they need but may feel they have to because the ability to do so exists.

How would the insurance industry treat AD? Surely one of the downsides of suicide, apart from the stigma, is that life insurance policies may not pay out on suicide. Would they treat AD the same, or differently?

over 50 % of ppl want the death penalty reintroduced - I expect you're not keen on the popular vote deciding that issue tho

im not opposed to assisted dying, I am opposed to this car crash of a bill

any evidence for the oft trotted out only religious ppl oppose it? Im
an atheist and I oppose this bill because it lacks safeguards for vulnerable ppl

I am in full support of assisted dying. I do believe this shall be passed at some point soon.

And yes in time the limitation around assisted dying will lessen, I am in support of this too as long as people are well enough clearly able to make their own decision and of course this is managed by a team not one medical profession.

In the end we simply can not financially support this not going ahead and all the main parties know this

A close relative at the moment is on palliative care, has been able to have months more than he was initially given by the doctors, and while he has a terminal condition, he's enjoying every day he has with his family.

He wants to be alive thanks. For as long as possible.

Financial. Yes.

It starts with 'people should have that option' to get the door open, and then quickly slides to 'who's too expensive to be allowed to live'.

Supporting an ever increasing number of very old people that are being kept alive because we have advanced so much with medical science and for those who are terminally ill too who have no quality of life. We can't ignore this is part of the consideration governments have to consider is financial but its not all of one and none of the other.

Why can't someone who has is very old and feels ready to die not be allowed to make that choice. My nanny would have in a heartbeat and my mum would to, not everyone would make that decision but to lose all independence to be in pain constanlty and to be depressed everyday is not a life many feel is worth living and they should have the choice to be able to die comfortably with loved ones around them

Will some feel pressure, I can not say that won't happen as some will feel pressure not to make that choice this is why professional well trained teams will need to manage to support for the personal making that choice and their families

My friend has a few family members in Canada that made this choice, how they proceed, the final days the contact with family and the messages sent after its just so carefully and beautifully done, it makes me sad that so many people I love did not have that choice for such a calm passing

The Lords were doing their constitutional duty in stopping a Bill which had not enough safeguards and which was badly drafted. Where is your evidence the religious right drove the Lords to act so or that people who object on religious grounds are cloaking this in other concerns? Those opposing the Bill were (and are) disabled groups, women's groups, charities supporting the vulnerable and the old, all of which see the Assisted Dying Bill as a Trojan horse for making dying rather than living the 'appropriate' choice for some people and a dangerous opening for abusers to persuade the vulnerable into killing themselves with the aid of the state.
I am 76. I oppose this Bill. I will die when I die in whatever way that happens - probably not how I choose, because we cannot make such a choice with any certainty. I doubt anyone is going to coerce me - but there are people who would be so coerced and I stand for their right to live rather than be persuaded that dying will benefit them.
I have specific objections to this Bill. Mainly that it does not provide proper safeguards but also that its provisions are vague: we cannot accurately guage how long someone has to live and Esther Rantzen, who has vociferously supported this Bill, is an exact example of that inability.

And it is perfectly legit to object on religious grounds to assisted dying since religions generally support the sanctity of human life, an important idea that protects us all and is a brake on governments treating human life as expendable.

That's great for him. I don't often hear this so it's a nice thing to hear. Can't make decisions based on the minority though. Need to think about the wider society and ultimately, a few extra days/weeks or even months for one person definitely in no way excuses the days, weeks, months, sometimes years of torture many others endure. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing how selfish I was being trying to prolong someone else's agony for a bit of extra time with my loved one.

Then again.. maybe I would be fine with it. We all get selfish when it comes to our own, which is understandable. But that's not how politicians should be making decisions for all of society. I hope they force us all to do the right thing.

I keep thinking about Logan's Run while reading this thread.
Good film.

I am a vet, I perform euthanasia a few times a week on animals. It is a kindness, but comes with lots of emotional toll on vets and nurses, I can’t imagine what it would be like for doctors/nurses working in this sector. Sometimes family members are undecided on what to do, a husband is pushing for it and a wife is not sure etc etc. It can be thorny at times.

my friend works in a hospice - she went to a meeting where people were asked to put up their hands if they would want assisted dying for themselves or a loved one, many put up their hands. They were asked to keep them up if they would be prepared to do it to someone else… few hands stayed up. If there is a general unwillingness within the medical profession to do this (especially caring, dedicated people in this sector) then this will create a massive problem for them, and for other patients where resources will be diverted away. going by the state of nhs and corridor care, do you really think this would be given the time and scrutiny it needs in every case?

It could also easily result in a societal shift where people feel like a burden by opting not to die, or like in other countries where people opt to die because treatment/care is expensive or they are facing homelessness etc. or mission creep towards other conditions and scenarios.

Maybe someone should design an AI robot without a conscience that could be programmed to do it, avoid the moral toll on an actual human. What do you think of that idea?

I am totally in favour of A D. My body, my choice. This country treats death in such an infantile and cowardly way. Death is part of life. Prolonged dying is not life.

The problem with that is that there’s a sharp difference between people who have a terminal illness and people who are healthy. It tends to be healthy people who are against it most strongly.

There isn't any polling that divides respondents by those who are terminally ill and those who aren't. There are people who who are terminally ill who want to die. Equally there are those who agreed with it when healthy who, when diagnosed with a terminal illness, decide they very much want to live actually.

I’ve just read about the Liverpool Care Pathway. Would the A.D. Bill operate in a similar way?

In answer to a question asked earlier - Google tells me, in Canada assisted dying is classed as a natural death for the purposes of insurance and pension. There is a window post death where insurers can contest this but it is not clear under what circumstances.

So many pps are saying "but only people with a terminal illness will be eligible" as if that is a safeguard. But it is far too easy to redesignate any psychological issue as "terminal" if one makes the argument that it could lead to suicide.

This is not far fetched. It is inevitable and I feel like Cassandra pointing it out.

Take disability payments for example. When being assessed for PIP, the questions ask things like "can you walk unaided to your local shop" (I paraphrase). The original intention of that question was to identify people with significant physical mobility issues. But then many people respond yes because their mental state prevents them from leaving the house to go to the shop. Suddenly the door opens for quite a lot of unforeseen eligibility based on that question. Suddenly it becomes very difficult, with these inadequate questions, to distinguish between someone with mild anxiety and truly debilitating mental disorder.

So if the criterion for assisted dying is "terminal illness with likely less than 6 months to live", i think the legislators are imagining patients with severe cancer and so on; but they are opening the door to basically any mental illnesses where it can be (justifiably or unjustifiably) argued that suicide is a risk within 6 months. Again, it will become very difficult to distinguish between someone with a transient despair and someone whose mental disorder is incurable.

This is not a slope we should slip down.

Gosh, I see we're really at the saying the quiet part out loud stage now aren't we?

I thought this was supposed to be good because it will prevent suffering in people who are terminally ill, but now it's got to go ahead because "we simply can not financially support this not going ahead"?

Does that mean that if assisted dying was more expensive than the average amount of palliative care needed, you wouldn't want it to go ahead, however much suffering could be prevented that way?

Is that why we can't have more safeguards, because we need it to be not just available, but cheap?

There is a push in Canada to have any mental health condition accepted as a reason to allow assisted death.

MAID for mental illness | Dying With Dignity Canada

The argument appears to be that you cannot discriminate on the basis of mental or physical disability and therefore denying someone with a mental health condition assisted death is discrimination.

Under Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. This includes on the basis of mental or physical disability. Excluding people whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness from assisted dying legislation is a breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why Dying With Dignity Canada has joined forces with legal firm Paliare Roland, Dr. Patricia Smith, and Claire Elyse-Brosseau in a legal challenge to secure equality for those whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness in Canada’s assisted dying legislation.

Currently the review is due to happen in 2027, I am not sure how likely it is to pass.

I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing how selfish I was being trying to prolong someone else's agony for a bit of extra time with my loved one.

Hang on a minute, I think I'm hallucinating here - you're calling me selfish for what? Not wanting someone to bump him off asap?