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/

Why not

Do you really believe countries (not jus the UK) are not looking into future costs

Should we pretend this isn't the case of course its part of the discussion

Regardless of the cost I do believe people should have the choice

I oppose state sanctioned “right to die” legislation. The way the world is, it will undoubtedly be used by the state rather than the public in the fullness of time.
I don’t oppose an individual’s right to die and I would definitely consider taking my own life in certain circumstances but, as a personal decision, I would not be asking people I don’t know or waiting for someone to make a decision on if I reach their criteria or not.

I can see how some people could see it as win win, if they're confident they themselves will never feel unwelcome or unpleasant pressure to die (or they're sure they'll just be able to ignore it). AD will then be there for them if they ever find a terminal illness unbearable, while also conveniently removing lots of expensive other people useless eaters they're currently forced to share society with (and compete for healthcare with), so they think they'll benefit from that too.

Unless of course this turns out to be one of those things where however straightforward it seems to be at first, the knock on effects can be so horrifying that it's still not the right thing to do. A bit like capital punishment - seems so obvious it's a good thing for the easy cases but then when you take into account things like wrongful convictions it's suddenly not quite that easy.

I think changing family life so that the possibility of an early death becomes the elephant in the room whenever someone is seriously ill (which could happen to young people too) is such an enormous change to society that it shouldn't be being implemented this way.

I'm not religious, and I don't really believe in the concept of something being sacred. However I think there are good pragmatic reasons for having rules in a society against taking another person's life, and breaking those rules should be rare and difficult, not common and relatively easy provided the people are old or ill.

Nrtt but I noticed this article which, I think, is pertinent

https://thecritic.co.uk/how-assisted-suicide-endangers-older-women/

I followed this link from the article

https://theotherhalf.uk/safeguarding-women-in-assisted-dying

I've not looked at the whole of the site. Much of it wasn't new to me but this

Another scenario emerges when a person subject to coercive control becomes ill. When professionals come in to make decisions, that can annoy the controlling person, whose systems of control are disrupted

although it should have been obvious, wasn't something i had previously considered.

The graphic of judges saying over and over and over again how 'exceptional' these cases were was just...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqlw0ke2v97o

Couldn’t help but think of all this thread today after reading this on BBC news. Petrifying that you could end up like this and be trapped without the option of assisted dying.

I’m not sure that case would fit the criteria for assisted dying. I think this is why the draft bill does need proper consideration. If you were in the same position as that man then you would have to have less than 6 months to live, and there’s nothing to suggest from the article that that would be the case. So you wouldn’t be able to access assisted dying.

I put an example upthread of two paralysed (quadriplegic) people where one wants to die and the other does not.

Oh absolutely agree the existing proposed bill with the 6 month rule needs expanding.

Absolutely why we should be able to have that option and the choice.

Sorry, that was a very brief post as I only had a min to type it!

I think that we are all showing how the bill in its current form is not well written or thought out, and that it needs to be fully debated and not rushed through. TBH, I would scrap this bill, start again, and do it properly.

If passed, Lauren Edwards’ assisted dying Bill will deliver one of the largest rollouts of assisted death in the world. Combined with its lack of safeguards to protect domestic abuse victims, this Bill presents an enormous risk to older women. Members of Parliament should be extremely concerned about passing the Terminally Ill Adults Bill without amendments that might fully safeguard these groups.

We all know that abusers exist and must be identified upfront. Domestic abuse won’t be rare if assisted dying is introduced: 1 in every 7 of those coming forward will likely be victims — mostly women over 60. How could their choice to die truly be free? How would we tell?

https://thecritic.co.uk/how-assisted-suicide-endangers-older-women/

Really important to realise that the Bill is being brought back without any amendments deliberately because if it is passed in the HoC then the HoL will be able to discuss but NOT make any amendments.

Its something call the Parliament Act.

And if passed on friday could be law within a year.

Also posted on https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5576630-terminally-ill-adults-end-of-life-bill-2026-equality-impact-assessment

And if passed on friday could be law within a year

Good.

Agree

People being able to make a choice in a managed way not to suffer any more is the right decision imp

Following this today to see what the outcome is, I am in favour of it as I personally want to be able to make choices as to when it's my time to go and be able to do so without resorting to awful methods.

And none of you are even slightly bothered by all the medical and disability organisations who are opposed to it in its current form?

The six months requirement is also being significantly overstated in terms of clinical certainty. If a medical team says a patient has six months, they explicitly mean the patient is too healthy to die right now, but they expect the patient's condition to deteriorate, based on the average progression of their disease. Believe it or not, doctors aren't clairvoyant.

I take care of a lady who was discharged from hospital after an acute illness as "end of life" care. That was over two years ago. Physically, she's in better health than before she was admitted.To be honest, I think her family are disappointed she's still here. I took her to a tribute act of her favourite band last week, so she's hardly mouldering away in sunken misery in an armchair. She still has quality of life.

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.

Well, well, well. Look at that. In this very thread, we have someone intimating that assisted suicide should be available on the NHS to those with years left to live. We started off with claims that it will be restricted to people whose doctors are sure they have less than six months to live, but damn, that slope was slippery, wasn't it?

I want assisted dying…. It’s essential.

As I posted earlier in the thread, Canada is going to move to allow the inclusion of mental health disorders in its assisted dying framework (MAID) from March next year.

So why bother with mental health support and suicide prevention? If all those people want to die, and Canada as a state is willing to help them die, why bother stopping anyone killing themselves? Just let them all kill themselves, save the country money from doing it via MAID.

Right?

This morning there was an MP speaking about this who is terminally ill herself. She explained she opposed the bill and from her point of view without adequate palliative care, the choice of "we cannot resolve your pain relief but we can offer you assisted dying" seems less of a choice than a threat.

Also, and this is maybe ghoulish, but is the method proposed for offing people actually confirmed to be painless? A couple of states in the US have stopped using certain meds in executions because of the time spent in distress and moved towards using gas... Thanks to Michael Portillo

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/06/nitrogen-gas-executions-michael-portillo

The people pushing assisted dying certainly take economics into account, as do countries that allow it. It is worth remembering that assisted suicide has its roots in the eugenics movement: that is the removal from the genetic pool of the 'unfit' (usually a judgement about intelligence or ability to contribute to the economy). I think we know where those ideas led. Which is why many of us oppose assisted dying in principal.

Did they choose today for the reading on purpose as the news is somewhat distracted, it being Sept 11th? Or should I put my tinfoil hat away now.

My body, my life, my choice. Who disagrees with that? I don't want to be bed bound and cared for, for days, months years on end. That isn't life to me. I should have a choice to decide when its my time to go and be able to do so without having to starve myself to death or many other awful ways people might try.

My nan had dementia she never left her bed for years then had a urinary infection she never recovered from, I saw her in her last moments the pain etched on her face, they couldn't give her anymore relief. It was the most awful thing to see to be honest that's my last memory of her. Just why? Why did she have to suffer until her body couldn't do anymore. Her last moments weren't peaceful it was pain.

With my Dad he passed away in his sleep, he probably didn't even know himself. But my last memory of him was him laughing, smiling talking and having a good time. This is how anyone would tell you they would like to die. No pain, no suffering.

And no one is stopping you killing yourself if you want too

what this bill is asking is for the state to kill you - I'm not actually against that in principle but I'm against this absolute dogs breakfast if a bill

and people with dementia are excluded (at the moment) because they lack capacity to decide