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/

Fuck knows! I think they thought with the ruse of the Parliament Act the Lords was safely sidestepped and they could just carry on with the same Bill that had previously passed in the Commons. Wasn't that a prerequisite, that it had to be unchanged? I don't trust that they had any plans beyond that.

I hope it is one day brought in and covers a wider range of terminal illnesses, like dementia, not just those where people are 6 months away from death. If you have degenerative disease you should be able to stipulate “I do not want to continue once I am… (unable to recognise my family/swallow/am doubly incontinent)”. I watch my mum slowly die of Alzheimer’s, the first few years she had a good quality of life, but the last couple of years she was constantly hallucinating and in a state of terror which left her screaming much of the time. It was horrendous for her and traumatic to watch, so if I want to avoid the same fate I will hope I am mentally aware enough to take my life much earlier in the disease than I actually would want to. Plus that would be traumatic for my family and the poor sod who has to find me. Either that or look into moving to the Isle of Man.

People with Alzheimer's are generally excluded from assisted dying because if their lack of capacity

I am surprised by the result of the vote. I am sure the matter will be considered again at some point.

I wondered if it would be possible, in the Canadian system, to leave instructions whilst you were mentally capable for assisted dying if you lose capacity.
I was thinking along the lines of ' I'm OK now but if I ever reach the point where I do not recognize loved ones then ...'

It seems that this is not possible in Canada except if you were already approved for AD before you lose mental capacity. In this case final consent can be bypassed.

Isn't this already covered in living wills?

I'm not an expert so have to rely on google. I guess there may be changes proposed in the 2027 review?

No, a standard living will or advance directive cannot request Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) under federal law in Canada

Federal Rules for MAID Consent

• Personal Capacity Required: Canadian federal law requires a patient to have the mental capacity to make medical decisions
• Two Points of Consent: A person must give informed consent when they first request MAID and again immediately before the procedure takes place.
• No Delegation: You cannot use a Power of Attorney for Personal Care or a living will to ask for MAID on your behalf after you lose your cognitive capacity

The Exception in Quebec

• Provincial Law: The province of Quebec allows advance requests for MAID
• Conditions: If a person in Quebec has a serious and incurable illness like Alzheimer's disease or dementia, they can make an advance request before losing capacity
• National Status: This exception applies only within Quebec. Advance requests remain illegal under the federal Criminal Code in the rest of Canada, as monitored by Dying With Dignity Canada

I agree, I too would like to whilst I have capacity to have something saying if I get x at stage y then my wish is to die peacefully. Or if I get xy and stage b etc. We have the right to make decisions now about organ donation, produce a will etc why can't something similar be done

And as I said earlier in the thread, what makes you think assisted dying in the NHS will be any less than a shit show compared to all the other NHS services like palliative care that are a shit show?

People seem to think NHS assisted dying will be a peaceful experience, in a large room with a huge window and views of the Swiss mountains, with caring non-exhausted staff who aren’t overworked and looking after 10 other assisted dying cases.

Put the framework of assisted dying into any typical NHS hospital and service and imagine what it will be like.

The NHS can’t even bring life into the world safely and respectfully, what makes anyone think it can end it safely and respectfully?

You're very wrapped up in yourself.

It's everyone else's business because you're advocating for a badly-written law that risked/risks other people being coerced into state assisted suicide, from people with disabilities to people in abusive relationships. The world does not start and end at what serves your ends.

Okay.. there is a risk of that but how big? I don't think it's selfish to want access to a painless exit on request and to expect sharp oversight and protections in place for the groups you describe.

We don't stop benefits because some people steal from their hardworking countryfolk.

Same idea - don't leave people suffering because a few might be coerced. But I do understand if the issue is that the government hasn't done enough to protect them. But... it's still a fair (/ crap) trade off to ensure tonnes of people don't have to suffer.. lesser of two. Same with abortion. It's terrible to murder potential humans. But it's slightly worse to force an existing / actual human to carry a parasite to term and birth it against their will.

I agree protections need to be in place. But it is definitely right to allow euthanasia.

Curious if you would have no issues as long as those groups were 100% protected.. is it really about them or is that a shield so you can prevent self-directed deaths at all costs? Autonomy is a human right. I couldn't choose to not be born so I should be able to choose to die painlessly.

Same idea - don't leave people suffering because a few might be coerced.

Sorry, just no.

If you could guarantee that the vulnerable would not be coerced, I doubt I'd have much of a quibble. I went into this issue thinking ill humans should have a right to euthanasia to avoid unnecessary suffering.

However, given that recent efforts for an assisted suicide bill seem to be designed to maximise the amount of people who can be coerced into death, I don't see any guarantees coming soon.

Same idea - don't leave people suffering because a few might be coerced.

I am of the view that just one case of someone being coerced would indicate it isn’t an appropriate system. It’s the same reason I don’t support the death penalty, because just one case of someone innocent being killed by the state indicates it isn’t an appropriate system. I find it concerning that people are willing to accept coerced deaths as just a necessary by product of an assisted dying bill.

“So what if some people who don’t want to die are effectively murdered? On the whole, more people will suffer less so it’s good.”

I think we can do better.

so I should be able to choose to die painlessly.

Again, this is the NHS we are talking about. Given all the other things that go wrong in the NHS on a daily basis, it is inevitable that the NHS version of assisted dying will:

• be done with the wrong drugs
• be done with too high a dose
• be done with too low a dose
• be done on the wrong patient
• fail to kill someone
• result in a painful death
• be done before the person’s loved ones get there
• be done in a corridor in the emergency department
• not be done because there isn’t enough staff or service provision and people will die before they get it
• will depend on where you live as to how likely any of the above eventuates

And so on.

Then add:

• be done on someone being coerced.

I think if this bill had passed, over the next 10 years there would be a cumulative number of cases that an investigative journalist Panorama-type programme would piece together into a story.

So the question is, how many cases of coercion would it take for people to make necessary changes?

And once again, think of this in the context of the NHS. We have just had the Ockenden Report into maternity services. It reported things everyone knows shouldn’t be happening. How confident is anyone that the NHS will make the necessary changes to ensure it doesn’t keep happening?

So fast forward into the future, journalists uncover multiple coerced deaths, the NHS commissions a report into it, vows to make sure it doesn’t keep happening…and on it goes.

It absolutely needs to be rock solid from the very beginning.

I want the choice. I don't want people be forced into the choice but as it is now people are being FORCED to exist in a state they don't want to. A forced death is over in an instant. A forced life can (and does) go on for years.
Give me the choice NOW

So you're saying that if something that makes your life better involves someone else dying, then that's OK provided the death itself is quick.

If you were to need a kidney transplant, does that mean it would be OK for someone to be killed to get you that kidney, provided they can be killed quickly?

A forced death might be quick but it's never 'over'. It's not like the person can come back to life later. When you accept someone's life being taken against their will to give you what you need, you're taking everything from that person, forever.

Ultimately as this becomes normative in a generation, we will see what is already established really play itself out. Not only will people be allowed to choose state assisted death at any time, there will also be an obligation on the state to choose it on behalf of people without capacity. That is with dementia, intellectual disabilities, children.

If their lives are seen as unbearable they will be seen as requiring the "health care" which is assisted death. Keep in mind many people think things like Down's Syndrome are an unacceptable QOL.

And individuals will see removing themselves as a burden as normal and required thinking.

I'd make a bet we'll see this thinking established within about 50 years.

Great post, completely agree.

We don't actually have to wait 50 years to see this. Just look at how quickly the criteria has widened in the Netherlands and Canada. Young people suffering from depression now can request to be killed. People struggling because they can't afford to support themselves or find adequate housing can request to be killed instead. People who change their minds about their decision can be killed despite saying they don't want to be killed. All legally.

There has never been an instance where a country that has implemented some form of assisted death has ever tightened up the criteria for who can access it or for what is deemed to be "intolerable suffering".

The current bill did say you have to self administer the drug. Just as it was pointed out to me earlier that you can kill yourself today anyway except today's choices aren't that great.

That's niaive. Of course people can be 'forced' into it. It's called coercion, guilt-tripping, gaslighting. The home costs so much, mum...DGS needs help with his student loan...

And in what way is that a safeguard to someone who has been coerced? The sense of being a burden and this being the right thing to do for the best of everyone else - a particularly female attitude - could easily be enough to make a woman take the pills even if she really doesn't want to do. There is no safeguard and the sanctity of human life is thrown out of the window.
How soon before the mentally ill, the disabled, the not very bright, the homeless and the addicted are also deemed capable of deciding to die - or have someone else decide they can die? Dignity in Dying used to be the Voluntary Euthanasia Society and was linked to the Eugenics Movement that advocated the sterilisation and removal of 'useless' or 'unproductive' people. How soon before that becomes allowed if we allow this Bill?
Mercifully, the Commons voted it down. All praise to those MPs who stood up and said they had changed their minds and those who stood up for the disabled, for abused women, for the mentally unwell or with SEND.

So collateral damage is okay as long as you have what you want? That's actually an immoral and also evil idea. It's also not analogous in anyway to someone stealing benefits.

And people can be coerced now though, its just harder for people to do if be ause the methods of doing so aren't as easy, who wants to risk jumping infront of train, off a building, slashing their wrists etc.

We habe had doctors killing patients with drugs already. And we don't even have an assisted dying bill in place. All those things have already happened with all the safe guards we have in place...so now what

Another aspect is that most nurses are female.

They would be expected to have an active role in this.
Fetching the suicide pills and so on. Knowing they're effectively killing someone.

They didn't sign up to end people's lives.

I'm a little bit sceptical of those who say they'll 'do anything' to stop a loved one's pain if I'm honest if they don't actually do the thing that is necessary to do just that themselves.

It's OK to put the burden of taking a life onto women's shoulders, though.

I might be pissed off if I had to shoulder that burden by people who claimed they'd 'do anything' to relieve their relative's pain but expected me to bear the brunt of it and have it on my conscience.

I'm trying to be polite because my actual reaction might be more Anglo Saxon in nature.