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/

Yes sadly these are the warnings from doctors and other experts from countries that allow this. Once you allow it for some the group widens and widens and then we end up with people who actually are just poor and needy money being eligible for MAID in Canada or depressed teenagers in the Netherlands being euthanised.

It's always worth remembering though that assisted dying doesn't guarantee a lack of pain, suffering or distress either for the dying person or their family either. What a lot of people are wanting our of this bill is euthanasia, which has better "success" rates, but that's not what the bill proposes. I think if this is allowed we will soon see people lobbying for changes in the method, widening the net of people who can access it etc

The inclusion of mental health disorders disturbs me a lot. Looking at the Netherlands we see very young people with depression being allowed state assisted dying when really how could any medical professional hand on heart say a 17 year olds depression will never improve at all? It's unthinkable.

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

And how would you suggest someone does that? It's needs to be 100% effective so you don't end up paralysed or brain damaged or both. And minimum trauma for whoever finds your dead or broken body.

Spoiler alert: that rules out hanging, cutting your wrists, overdose, throwing yourself from a tall building or in front of a train and so on.

I’m relieved 286 voted against this Bill and it has been voted Down.

So, it's back to jumping off buildings or in front of trains then. Failed overdoses and resulting harms, and home electrocutions. Fair enough.

Exactly and look at the language if you do it yourself its killing yourself and suicide. Its not dying with dignity. Someone will then discover you and that is far more traumatic to that person then having your loved ones there as you slip away.

Animals get more dignity than humans want to give themselves. Noone lets their dog starve to death or suffer in pain for years.

Wait until its yourself and how long will you keep telling yourself I want to live.

My hope is that someone now puts together a well-thought-out bill which goes through the correct procedures and is passed.

Absobloodylutely

now perhaps the government can put it into its legislative programme and do it in a proper grown up green paper/white paper/scrutiny committee/draft bill instead of trying to handwave it through as a private members bill

aka do it bloody properly

It's worth noting that it was 286 against, and 270 for, so it was very close.

If another bill is brought before Parliament that addresses what seventeen MPs want/are concerned next time, it may well pass...(and then probably be chewed up at HoL).

My point is that, even with the "flaws" in it that many people didn't like, many other people thought this bill was enough. Many MPs.

I have read enough about the issue to understand some posters' concerns, and it may be that this one was not the right bill. But, I still want my choices for my end-of-life to be respected. It's my life.

It may take another 10 years, but I believe a bill will pass eventually. Perhaps not in my lifetime, though, so I shall have to consider my options. Luckily, I will probably have options. Many people will not.

This image went around social media listing the amendments that were voted down, as well as the ones that were accepted.

I would like MNers to pay attention to the amendment regarding whether applicants for assisted NHS suicide should be informed about side-effects (including pain) of the drugs used, and the amendment suggesting that doctors should not be the ones to initiate discussions of suicide with patients. Apparently both of those were voted down.

I want assisted dying. I have survived cancer once, with a drastically reduced quality of life as "cancer free" and "fully back to health" are very different states. Maybe next time it strikes I may survive again, but I want the ability to say "no I'm not gonna fight it any more" when I choose to as and when the cycle becomes too much for me. However, I agree with today's decision - the Bill as it is currently worded does not have sufficient safeguards and it is wrong to push through an Assisted Dying Bill without first fixing the problems in the NHS and the Palliative Care services that would, if properly functioning, make surviving be preferrable in many cases.

I see the same things are being said as were being said at the start of this thread.

It isn't about "I want" therefore it is right.

It is about a very badly written bill has been allowed by the then Government to take up hours of time in both the HoC and HoL.

If you really want it, and want it to be fit for purpose, get off your backside and lobby for a properly written one that does reflect an assisted dying bill that is scrupulously written.

I think the pro bill people did themselves real harm by trying to make out the HoL was being undemocratic. They weren't. They were fulfilling their function.

And from press coverage was has come out of this is that more people are now saying there has to be better provision for hospice care.

Look at this comment.

Someone is actually saying that a reason for this is that with an ageing population and a shortage of carers we need a sort of culling system.

Just as during Covid GP services agreed to send out DNR letters for all there elderly patients to sign.

I suppose we can be glad that somehow during covid that didn't bring in a deadline of if you are over 50, you will be left to die.

And as we know they knowingly allowed those infected with covid to be sent back to care homes which ended with more people being infected.

Does anyone think that a country that has Government and / or its administrative departments thinks like this?

If it took the House of Lords to make people think what a botched job this bill was, thank goodness.

Just as during Covid GP services agreed to send out DNR letters for all there elderly patients to sign.

Thousands of disabled people had DNACPRs summarily issued too

Esther Rantzens daughter was on the radio now. She's furious and ascribing the lost vote to some ardent advocates being in Ukraine and unable to secure partners to vote on their behalf

In my experience, you still can't take a disabled person or elderly person for emergency care without being quizzed on why they don't have a DNR in place. Pressuring patient representatives to complete DNR paperwork is higher priority than taking the patient history. No-one comes out and says it, but you can tell my local overstretched A&E department is staffed by people who think the old and disabled are a waste of limited resources.

I have had to fight for people to receive basic treatment, and these MPs expect me to believe everything will be tickety-boo with that excuse for a bill? When they expressly wanted it to be legal for the same doctors to raise the subject of assisted suicide with patients? They voted against protections for people with learning disabilities and autism. It's a feature, not a bug, and it's to cut the care bill.

share token for a piece in The Times echoing much of what has been said on here

Lack of consensus among the terminally ill ends assisted dying

www.thetimes.com/article/886f0437-b771-4d06-aa63-733a0bbfb4ec?shareToken=8ddebd6a6fa6577e7309c3994ae38256

The details of the proposed amendments that were voted down are really disturbing @HomericEpithet - its one thing to be potentially shortsighted in pushing forward a bill with inadequate safeguards but to actively oppose workable safeguards is actual malice.

Adrian Poulton was a man with Down Syndrome. He died after being denied food in hospital for nine days. As a result, the trust had to pay his family £15,000 in compensation. You read that right: just £15,000 for starving someone to death.

I wonder how many "mistakes" would lead to people like Adrian being "accidentally" categorised as having consented to assisted dying. Does Esther Rantzen's daughter ever think about people like Adrian?

A family has won compensation over the death of a hospital patient who was not fed for nine days.

The 56-year-old man, who had Down's syndrome and dementia, died from pneumonia at Poole Hospital in 2021.

The hospital's "shocking mismanagement" of nutrition caused his subsequent severe deterioration and death, the family's solicitor said.

The hospital, which paid £15,000 in compensation, said it apologised for the failings and had made changes.

The man was put into care after being looked after by his parents for most of his life, solicitor Adrian Cormack said.

However, he fell and fractured his hip on his first night at a Bournemouth care home, Mr Cormack said.

The solicitor said the patient was admitted to Poole Hospital and was listed as "nil by mouth" because he had difficulty swallowing.

There was a crucial lack of communication between hospital teams over the patient's deteriorating condition, Mr Cormack said.

Senior clinicians did not heed "attempts by nursing staff to escalate care", he said.

NHS Resolution, which settled the family's claim, said "on balance of probability, the admitted breach of duty caused a deterioration... and he would not have died when he did", according to the solicitor.

The care home, which did not admit liability, paid the family £7,500.

Mr Cormack said: "This was a shocking case. It was mismanagement by the hospital.

"Sadly, the damages for statutory bereavement are limited by law to just £15,120. This is wholly inadequate for bereaved families who have lost loved ones."

NHS Resolution said it was unable to comment.

Siobhan Harrington, chief executive of University Hospitals Dorset, said: "We offer our sincere condolences once again to the family and have apologised for the failings that resulted in his death.

"We have implemented a number of changes following this and have shared these with the family."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-68251142

Exactly we will never fix the NHS, palliative care hospice etc. I don't wsnt to die from being starved and kept alive at all costs. I want a choice. Maybe people need to stop keeping people alive at all costs.

At what point is it not a quality if life for you? It'll be different for everyone but everyone will have a point, do you want to be kept alive beyond that? For what? Why? A quality of life over quantity surely.

Kept alive at all costs? What are you talking about? He was only 56!

My Dad was diagnosed with liver cancer just over 3 years ago, and his decline was horribly rapid. Within 4 months, he was given a bed in a hospice for symptom management. He was given a cocktail of drugs, none of which gave him any improvement in quality of life and which came at significant cost to the NHS (Rifaximin and Creon). He lost nearly 6 stone, was skeletal, could barely eat or drink and was led in bed unable to bear his own weight - for 2 fucking horrendous months. By the time he was nearing the brutal end, his liver had stopped playing ball and wasn't metabolising any of the drugs they were given him - so he was led in bed screaming like a wild animal, throwing bedding off, not knowing where he was. I wouldn't wish that last 2 weeks of his life on anyone. He died with no dignity, no peace and no happy ending. That's the Dad I still see when I close my eyes at night.

I would add that he had an AMAZING palliative care team, I actually was so overwhelmed by the care and kindness. The Consultant rang me daily to check in, and gave me his personal mobile number. But the reality is that good palliative care doesn't mean a good death. And that's for many.

This bill rejection is a travesty to those who are cursed with terminal illness.

I'm sorry for PPs who have told us of their loved ones who suffered when they died and/or who fear a similar end for themselves. This from the debate reported in the Times article upthread perhaps shows where any anger should be directed

“This House is not a debating society. It’s about making the law. Whilst we may be campaigners out there, in here, we are all legislators,” said Dalton. “Instead of bringing a bill identical to the last, why didn’t the proposers spend the summer working with the Royal Medical Colleges, professional bodies and organisations to build a bill that they could also support? If they had done that, it would have been very difficult for anyone opposed to the principle to argue against the bill, but they didn’t.”

So the MPs leading the pro side of the debate decided that the easiest? / best? / simplest? option was to 'force it through and fix it later'?

Yeah.. if I had to live with my muscles weakening and no longer being able to speak and then becoming bedridden etc.. I wouldn't want to wait until I had months left but if that's what the rule is - fine. Better than nothing.

Personally, I think I should be able to have a peaceful exit from this crap planet on request, no questions asked. No idea why it's anyone's business.. aaaah because you will grieve / suffer.. there's the selfishness again(!) - it's understandable but not acceptable. I shouldn't be denied a painless exit because you don't want to be sad for a bit.