Fix how we care for the most vulnerable. No to assisted suicide.

The following article by Zubir Ahmad was published by the Guardian on August 25, 2026.

Usually we comment on an article, but Dr Zubir Ahmad it was better to simply republish this article. The British parliament will once again vote-on an assisted suicide bill on September 11, 2026. The new bill is nearly identical to the previous bill.

Dr Zubir Ahmad

By Dr Zubir Ahmad 

As a doctor, I have spent much of my professional life caring for people at some of the most vulnerable moments they will ever face. I have seen the anxiety that surrounds the prospect of dying, and the desperate wish of patients and families to avoid unnecessary suffering.

Naturally, we all want people facing the end of life to be treated with kindness and respect. But when considering the debate on assisted dying, true compassion demands that we ask a more fundamental question. What kind of society are we building if, before we’ve fixed the systems designed to care for people, we introduce a system designed to help them die? As a former health minister who has seen the system from the inside, I am able to say it is not ready or equipped to answer this question.

Andy Burnham has been right to raise this as a priority issue at the start of his tenure as prime minister. Speaking at a care home recently, he explained that assisted dying should not be introduced while Britain’s palliative care and social care systems remain under such strain. A choice between death without adequate care and a death prematurely self-induced is not a real choice.

Indeed, as parliament prepares for yet another vote on assisted dying in England and Wales on 11 September, I fear that the offering has been somewhat mis-sold to the public. A state-controlled medicalised dying process is still a process – one where there remain risks of complication and suffering. The reality of assisted dying is more complex than the promise of a perfectly controlled death.

Many people imagine a system where a person facing a terminal illness can choose the exact moment and manner of their death, free from distress. But the legislation does not and cannot provide that certainty. A patient who self-administers medication to begin the dying process may still experience complications. The process may take time; it may require medical intervention. It may not happen where or when the person imagined. The promise of absolute control can therefore become something different in practice: an appearance of choice that does not always deliver the agency people expect.

I am far from the only medical professional to be worried about the prospect of assisted dying being available on the NHS. Among those raising concerns about the bill’s dozens of flaws have been the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Complex Life and Death Decisions (CLADD) group from King’s College London, the Royal College of Pathologists, the British Geriatrics Society and numerous other medical bodies and care authorities. The same concern comes up again and again: is it really a “free choice” when palliative care and social support fall short?

A person’s wish to die does not happen in isolation from their circumstances. It can be shaped by whether they feel supported, whether they fear becoming a burden, whether their family is coping and whether they have access to the care they need. That is why the state of our care systems cannot be treated as a separate issue from assisted dying. Timely access to palliative and social care remains too often determined by where someone lives rather than what they need. For some families, excellent end-of-life support is available; for others, particularly in rural areas as well as constituencies experiencing high inequality, the experience is one of waiting, uncertainty and having to fight for services that should be guaranteed.

A Labour government founded the NHS on a principle that remains as important today as it was at its creation: that healthcare should be there when people need it most, regardless of their circumstances. A postcode lottery in care cannot be ignored while debating a new legal pathway for people at the end of their life.

In Scotland, this concern has been expressed clearly, and was an important reason why, in March, 85% of Labour MSPs voted against the legalisation of assisted dying in Holyrood. The bill introduced in Westminster by my colleague Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP for Spen Valley, in October 2024 did not fare much better: too many concerns about patient welfare meant the House of Lords would not rubber-stamp the flawed text. And yet, on 11 September, MPs will be faced with yet another vote on assisted dying before the care systems are improved to a level which even makes that debate appropriate. Andy Burnham has his priorities right: this is the wrong debate at the wrong time. This is why I, and many others, will be voting against this bill, in pursuit of comfort, dignity and appropriate care for people who are vulnerable and dying.

Zubir Ahmed MP is an NHS vascular and transplant surgeon, and served as the parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department of Health and Social Care from 6 September 2025 to 12 May 2026.

Nitschke will bring suicide pod to Britain if assisted suicide is legalized.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Philip Nitschke, also known as Dr Death, who invented a suicide pod, stated in an interview, last year, that the suicide pod will be ready for use in Britain if assisted suicide is legalized.

Sanchez Manning reported for the Times on June 20, 2025 that:

Nitschke, who invented the pod, which uses gas to assist death, said: “As soon as we know that the final legislation is in place we’ll start enthusiastically pursuing the option of using the device in the UK.

“We’ll be looking to find UK-registered doctors to assist and of course someone who wants to use it and satisfies all of the requirements under the law.”

In September 2024, long-time euthanasia activist, Philip Nitschke, carried out the first assisted suicide Sarco suicide pod death in Switzerland.

The suicide pod is promoted as an easy and pain free death. The pod is designed in a sleek manner to make it seem like a fashionable way to die. The pod causes death by releasing Nitrogen gas resulting in death within several minutes.

The UK House of Commons will once again debate the Kim Leadbeater assisted suicide bill which passed, by a vote of 330 to 275 on November 29, 2024 at second reading, in the UK House of Commons but died on the order paper in the House of Lords earlier this year.

The House of Lords debated multiple amendments to the flawed Leadbeater bill. The debate in the House of Lords (timed-out) before they voted on the bill.

Lauren Edwards, (Labour MP) for Rochester and Strood, had reintroduced the Leadbeater bill, that is scheduled to have it's first vote on September 11, 2026. The Edwards bill is nearly identical to the Leadbeater bill and therefore may not be required to be debated in the House of Lords, if it passes at final reading in the UK House of Commons based on the rule that if a nearly identical bill passes twice in consecutive parliaments, then it is not required to be debated in the House of Lords.

More recently Nitschke has been promoting the KK suicide "collar" which, when activated, will essentially strangle the person to death.

Nitschke has become a notorious and wealthy promoter of suicide through the sale of his books and devices. He has become famous with the creation of his "suicide pod" that is designed to gain media attention.

Nitshcke is known for his support for suicide on demand. He once told a reporter that even troubled teens should have access to the "peaceful pill".

Nitshke is not an "outsider" in the euthanasia movement. He has been a leader and world-wide euthanasia activist since the mid 1990's when he became the first doctor to legally kill patients in Australia's northern territory that had legalized euthanasia in 1995 but the law was overturned in 1997.

The sad news is that Australia's Northern Territory once again legalized euthanasia on August 27, 2026. 

UK Prime Minister seeks to delay assisted suicide debate

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Prime Minister Andy Burnham

The new UK Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, while speaking with reporters after a speech at a Jewish Care facility about social care reform commented on the upcoming assisted suicide debate. Burnham stated at (11:34):

"I take the view that the debate, and I don't say that there shouldn't be a debate at some point about those issues, personally I think that there is something that needs to happen first and that's the fixing of the funding of palliative care and social care. 

I think it is very challenging to introduce that wider debate in a context of people not receiving that care and having the peace of mind about that care.”

Burnham did not say that he opposes assisted suicide but he did say that improvements to end-of-life care should be dealt with first, before the UK considers assisted suicide.

These comments are important because on June 17, 2026 Labour MP Lauren Edwards introduced a similar version of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that recently died in the British House of Lords. MPs are scheduled to vote on the Edwards assisted suicide bill at second reading on September 11, 2026.

On November 29, 2024; the UK House of Commons voted 330 to 275 at second reading to support Kim Leadbeater's assisted suicide bill, which was nearly identical to Edwards bill

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is convinced that Edwards introduced a nearly identical assisted suicide bill as the Leadbeater bill in order to invoke The Parliament Acts, which allows the House of Commons to forgo approval from the House of Lords when passing two nearly identical bills within consecutive parliamentary sessions.

The Parliament Acts has only been used seven times since 1911 for Government legislation, and it has never been used for a Private Members’ Bill. Edwards assisted suicide is a private members bill.

Prime Minister Burnham's comments along with the fact that he has given members of his Labour party the right to vote with their conscience means that the Edwards assisted suicide bill will more likely be defeated on September 11.

The British assisted suicide bill is back - And so is Not Dead Yet.

The following message was sent out by Not Dead Yet UK on July 23, 2026.

By now you'll know that the assisted dying bill is back.

On 17 June, Labour MP Lauren Edwards introduced a new version of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. MPs will vote on whether it should proceed at its second reading on 11 September 2026. That's less than two months away.

So what's new?

Honestly? Not much.

This is the same bill Kim Leadbeater brought forward in 2024 — the one that spent months being picked apart in the House of Lords, generating more than 1,300 amendments before running out of time in April. The bill fell not because it was defeated, but because Parliament was prorogued. Now it's back, with two minor Lords amendments incorporated.

The first is a technical Wales amendment. Because delivering health services is devolved to the Welsh Government, the bill now requires the Senedd to give its approval before Welsh Ministers can set up the regulations for assisted dying in Wales. It's a constitutional housekeeping change. It doesn't alter what the bill actually does.

The second concerns people with eating disorders. This one is more serious. During the Lords debates earlier this year, peers raised concerns that someone with anorexia could potentially stop eating — deliberately — in order to reach the six-month terminal threshold and qualify for an assisted death. A minor amendment was added in the Lords to address this. But experts who work with people with eating disorders say it doesn't go far enough. The loophole, they argue, remains. We agree.

Everything else about the bill — its safeguards, its eligibility criteria, its scope — is unchanged. The concerns we have always raised remain. Disabled people face cuts to their independence, support, and care. Palliative care is under-resourced. In that environment, telling people they have the option to end their lives early is not compassion. It is a profound risk to people who already feel like a burden.

Even the new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, has acknowledged this. He has said he supports the principle of assisted dying — but only if hospices are "properly funded and sorted out" first. "You can't have this law change with an underfunded hospice movement," he said. We agree. And that underfunding hasn't been fixed.

What we're doing about it.

We are meeting very shortly to put the final touches to our campaign strategy for September. Our main goals are:

• Persuading MPs to vote against the bill at second reading on 11 September.
• Organising a demonstration outside the Houses of Parliament on the same day.

We will be in touch with full details as soon as they're confirmed — including how you can write to your MP, join us in person, or support the campaign in other ways.

We know many of you have been with us since the beginning of this fight. Your support matters enormously. We are not done yet.

UK assisted suicide bill will go to a vote on September 11, 2026

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The UK Leadbeater assisted suicide bill that failed to pass earlier this year in the House of Lords has been revived by Lauren Edwards MP with nearly identical language as the failed Leadbeater bill.

On November 29, 2024; Members of the UK House of Commons voted 330 to 275 at second reading to support Kim Leadbeater's assisted suicide bill.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition urges the UK to Kill the bill not the patients.

The Care Not Killing Alliance stated in their July 17 report that:

Yesterday, Lauren Edwards MP published her Private Member’s Bill. We say “her” bill, but it is essentially the same as the one which foundered in the Lords earlier this year: they could have taken this opportunity to reflect and respond to the many concerns of experts and professional groups, but the clear priority is to leave open the door to use of the Parliament Acts, and so you can be sure that there will be strenuous efforts to prevent MPs from seeking amendments to the Bill.

The House of Lords debate exposed serious flaws with the Leadbeater assisted suicide bill and yet Edwards insists on pushing the same flawed bill because, if passed by the House of Commons, it would not be required to be debated by the House of Lords, where strong opposition to assisted suicide exists.

The Parliament Acts have only been used seven times since 1911 for Government legislation, and it has never been used for a Private Members’ Bill. Edwards assisted suicide is a private members bill.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is convinced that Edwards, who is a Labour MP for Rochester and Stroud, has introduced a nearly identical assisted suicide bill as the Leadbeater bill in order to invoke The Parliament Acts, which allows the House of Commons to forgo approval from the House of Lords when passing two essentially identical bills within consecutive parliamentary sessions.

A similar parliamentary tactic was used in France where the National Assembly passed identical euthanasia bills on June 30 and July 15 that enabled them to ignore the opposition to the euthanasia bill in the Senate, even though France's Senate is elected.

California also legalized assisted suicide in 2015 with a similar tactic.

Concerning California, on August 18, 2015 we wrote:

The assisted suicide lobby has renewed their push to legalize assisted suicide in California after their previous assisted suicide bill, SB 128, was stopped in the Health Committee.

The assisted suicide lobby is taking advantage of the special legislative session called by Governor Jerry Brown to address shortfalls in healthcare funding. The new assisted suicide bill AB 15 is nearly identical to SB 128, but AB 15 will not be heard by the Health Committee.

In other words, SB 128 was stopped in California's Health Committee, then Governor Brown opened a "special session" to examine shortfalls in healthcare funding that included Bill AB 15, an identical assisted suicide bill to SB 128, which passed in the special session and became law.

 

Edwards appears to be using the same playbook that was used recently in France and in 2015 in California.

 

Kill the bill, not the patients. 

What should happen to the UK assisted suicide bill?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alex Schadenberg

I have been in the UK for several days as I spoke at an international leaders conference and I attended another international conference. 

It has been an interesting experience in the UK with the resignation of Prime Minister Keir Starmer (Labour Party) and the emergence of Andy Burnham, as his likely successor as the leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister.

The UK is also preparing to once again debate the Kim Leadbeater assisted suicide bill, that died on the order paper in the House of Lords earlier this year. The bill passed, on November 29, 2024 at second reading, in the UK House of Commons, by a vote of 330 to 275.

The House of Lords debated multiple amendments to the Leadbeater bill but the bill was so flawed that the debate (timed-out) before voting on the bill.

All of this happened in-spite of the fact that Prime Minister Starmer was a strong supporter of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Now, Lauren Edwards, (Labour MP) for Rochester and Strood has promised to bring back the Leadbeater bill. Edwards wants to pass an identical version of the bill to enable parliament to legalize assisted suicide without needing approval from the House of Lords.

If the UK parliament passes an identical bill in two consecutive sessions it can bypass the required support of the House of Lords.

Since the House of Lords uncovered flaws with the assisted suicide bill, it would be ridiculous to approve the bill, in the House of Commons based on procedural rules.

Starmer / Burnham

Considering the multiple parliamentary issues faced in the UK, the most reasonable approach would be that after the Labour Party choose a new leader / Prime Minister, then the new Prime Minister (7th in 10 years) would set the parliamentary agenda with a new speech from the throne.

If another assisted suicide bill is introduced then it would be dealt with in a democratic manner and likely be defeated based on the reality of legalizing assisted suicide.

As for assisted suicide in the UK, last March Scotland defeated their assisted suicide bill by a vote of 69 to 57 even though the same bill had passed by a vote of 70 to 56 at second reading. Members of the Scottish legislature changed their vote after debating the reality of assisted suicide.

The British House of Lords and the Scottish parliament essentially recognized that Canada's experience with euthanasia proves that it is impossible to legalize assisted suicide with effective oversight and without inevitable expansions.

Britain needs to focus on improving care and rejecting killing.

We oppose killing people and support caring for people.

The UK will debate the Leadbeater assisted suicide bill again.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The UK will once again debate the Kim Leadbeater assisted suicide bill, that died on the order paper in the House of Lords earlier this year. The bill originally passed, on November 29, 2024 at second reading, in the UK House of Commons, by a vote of 330 to 275.

The House of Lords debated multiple amendments to the Leadbeater bill. The bill was so flawed that the House of Lords (timed-out) before ever voting on the bill.

Lauren Edwards, (Labour MP) for Rochester and Strood, said she would bring back the Leadbeater bill while members of the governing Labour party are also talking about passing legislation to over-ride the requirement that the House of Lords pass the legislation. 

The BBC news story by Harry Farley stated:

By bringing exactly the same legislation, Edwards is threatening to trigger rarely used powers to override peers' objections should they refuse to pass it again.

Bills usually only become law if both Houses of Parliament agree on its final wording.

But the powers under the Parliament Act, which have only been used seven times in the last century, mean that if MPs pass an identical bill in two consecutive parliamentary sessions, peers cannot block it a second time. 

The Lords can suggest amendments which, if agreed by the Commons, would be added to the bill. But if they do not pass the bill as a whole before the end of the next session - usually in around a year's time - the unamended bill could become law even without their approval.

Dr Gordon MacDonald

Gordon MacDonald, CEO of the Care Not Killing Alliance urged his supporters to help them to fight the dangerous bill:

MPs will vote on the Bill on 11 September. To stop the Bill, we are now planning a summer campaign for which we need to raise an additional £45k to fund summer campaign spending.

The wind is blowing our direction. The House of Lords Leadbeater bill debate identified multiple problems with the language in the bill.

Also, Scotland defeated their assisted suicide bill on March 17, 2026 by a vote of 69 to 57. The Scottish bill originally passed at Second Reading by a vote of 70 to 56. 13 MSP's who originally supported the Scottish bill, at the final vote, changed their vote.

I predict that the British House of Commons vote will be very closer this time and it is likely that the assisted suicide bill will be defeated. 

The Canadian experience with euthanasia is crucial for defeating the UK assisted suicide bill. The UK House of Commons cannot ignore the multiple problematic stories from Canada. Sadly, these stories concern a person who already died by euthanasia, but these stories are changing the assisted suicide debate world-wide.

More articles on this topic:

• Great news. Scotland's assisted suicide bill is rejected (Read). 
• UK assisted suicide bill will likely die in the House of Lords (Read). 
• UK assisted suicide bill makes deception and coercion easier (Read). 
• Disabled House of Lords member harassed for opposing assisted suicide (Read). 
• Strong opposition to assisted suicide during House of Lords debate (Read).

UK assisted suicide bill will likely die in the House of Lords.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Harry Farley, a political correspondent for BBC news wrote a commentary on the likely death of the Leadbeater UK assisted suicide bill. Farley's article provides significant information about what is happening within the British Labour party concerning the assisted suicide bill.

The article states that 100 Labour MP's warned Keir Starmer, Britain's Labour Prime Minister, that:

failing to pass assisted dying legislation would undermine trust in politics

Starmer has put significant political capital into the passing of the Leadbeater assisted suicide bill. Even though it is a private members bill, Starmer provided Kim Leadbeater with extra parliamentary staff to enable her to carry and pass the bill. It must be noted that Starmer is a long-time supporter of assisted suicide.

Now that Scotland's assisted suicide bill has been defeated with members who oppose assisted suicide and members who support assisted suicide but didn't support the McArthur assisted suicide bill.

Similar to the defeat of the Scottish assisted suicide bill, the UK assisted suicide bill has stalled in the House of Lords, based on opposition to assisted suicide but also based on the language of the bill. Farley explains:

The current bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales was passed by the Commons in June last year but has been stalled in the House of Lords for months and is now unlikely to pass.

Opponents warn the bill is flawed and any attempt to push it through would be unsafe and would harm vulnerable people. Downing Street (the Prime Minister) has previously said it was a matter for parliament.

Members of the House of Lords are trying to amend the bill. Farley writes:

Supporters now believe it is "effectively impossible" for the bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales to pass before the end of this session, expected in May.

This is largely because more than 1,200 amendments have been tabled in the House of Lords, principally from opponents to the legislation.

With only three of 14 days of debate in the Lords remaining, around half of the amendments are yet to be discussed.

Farley spoke to Jess Asato, a Labour MP who opposes the assisted suicide bill who stated:

"The sponsor of the bill has rejected 99% of suggested improvements and amendments in the House of Lords and so it still contains all the same faults and issues."

"Any MP that voted to push this bill through would do so knowing that it is unsafe and would harm vulnerable people."

Farley interviewed a source working with Labour opponents to the assisted suicide bill who said:

"For Labour MPs to continue to agitate for this unsafe, badly written and divisive bill rather than focus on the reasons people voted for us at the election is madness.

"Labour needs to work on delivering on our manifesto and running the country well, not rerunning contentious arguments about assisted dying."

With the defeat of Scotland's assisted suicide bill, it is more likely that the Leadbeater UK assisted suicide bill, that would legalize assisted suicide in England and Wales, will also die a natural death.

But as Gordon Macdonald, CEO of Care Not Killing stated concerning Scotland's assisted suicide bill:

We will need your help again in the future (“this is coming back”).

We hope that the Leadbeater assisted suicide bill will soon be declared dead, but the battle will continue as we await the next attempt in the UK, and other places, to legalize the killing of people at a vulnerable time of their life.

Welsh parliament to vote on assisted suicide bill.

The following message was sent from Care NOT Killing UK.

Gordon Macdonald CEO Care NOT Killing

On February 24, the Welsh Parliament (Senedd) will vote on whether Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill — if passed — would require the Welsh NHS to deliver medically assisted killing.

The Senedd cannot block the Bill outright.

But it can withhold “legislative consent.”

If consent is refused, assisted suicide in Wales would likely be restricted to private providers only — limiting its reach and protecting many vulnerable people from pressure to end their own lives.

While restricted provision is not the outcome we ultimately seek, it would significantly reduce the harm should the Leadbeater assisted suicide Bill become law. Countless lives would be saved as assisted suicide wouldn’t become part of routine healthcare. It would also protect thousands of healthcare staff from potentially being indirectly involved in the process.

Wales has rejected assisted suicide before

In October 2024, the Senedd voted against legalising assisted dying: Against: 26
In favour: 19 - Abstentions: 9

Article - Great news: Welsh parliament rejects assisted suicide (Read).

Plaid Cymru’s Delyth Jewell, who voted against, warned:

“My fear with this motion — well, my terror, really — is not so much with how it will begin as with how it will end.”

She expressed concern that people may feel pressured to end their lives because they lack adequate palliative care or fear being a burden. 

Link to Members of the Welsh Senedd (Contact List)

She is right to be concerned.

Hospice UK estimates that 1 in 4 people who could benefit from palliative or end-of-life care do not receive it — around 100,000 people each year.

Without guaranteed access to high-quality care, “choice” can quickly become pressure to succumb to an assisted death.

This time, the vote could go either way.

Tomorrow’s Motion presents MSs with an important opportunity to send a clear signal from Wales to Peers at Westminster that the Leadbeater assisted suicide Bill is dangerous and should fall.

Serious Reasons Why the Bill Puts People at Risk:

1. Safeguards Too Weak to Prevent Coercion

(High risk of coercion or undue influence on people who are frail, isolated, disabled, poor, or feel like a burden)

2. Eligibility Will Likely Expand Over Time

(Children, people with a mental illness or disability could eventually be included, as has happened around the world where assisted suicide has been legalised)

3. “Terminal Illness” Defined Too Broadly

(The definition may include conditions that are not inherently fatal—e.g. diabetes)

4. High Court Safeguard Removed

(Replaced with ‘expert’ panels, drastically reducing independent oversight)

5. Doctors Allowed to Suggest Assisted Suicide Unprompted

(In Canada, this has led to patients being repeatedly offered MAID despite insisting they were NOT interested)

6. Depression and Coercion May Go Undetected

(Studies show clinicians frequently miss depression in medically ill patients. Doctors only need to be satisfied “on the balance of probability” that a request is voluntary.)

7. No Clear Protocol for Lethal Drugs

(Drugs are not specified, and evidence from other jurisdictions suggests a potential for distressing deaths)

8. Capacity Safeguards for Disabled People Miss The Point

(How can individuals – e.g. with autism or a mental disorder – truly make a “clear, settled and informed” decision)

9. Conscience Protections for NHS Staff Are Weak

(Although doctors are not compelled to participate directly, they will likely be obliged to refer patients to assisted suicide services, so they will still be involved)

10. Palliative Care Gaps Remain Unaddressed

The Bill comes before improving palliative care services. Without guaranteed access to high-quality end-of-life care, many will feel ‘forced’ to ‘choose’ an assisted death)

11. Hospices Could Be Forced to Facilitate Assisted Death

(They would have no right to refuse to facilitate assisted suicide. Amendments seeking to give institutions an opt-out were rejected. This could mean: Hospices being required to allow assisted deaths on their premises. 

Public funding being threatened if they refuse

In addition, religious institutions may be forced to participate or face severe penalties.

Link to Members of the Welsh Senedd (Contact List)

Defeating the UK assisted suicide bills. Victory is close.

The following is the report from Dr Gordon Macdonald the CEO of Care NOT Killing in the UK, a leading group opposing the legalization of assisted suicide in the UK, Scotland and the British Isles.

Care NOT Killing needs donations to stop assisted suicide legalization in the UK (Donation Link).

Dr Gordon Macdonald

Dr Gordon Macdonald

I am delighted to report that the fruits of many months of campaigning could be about to pay off.

FIRST: England & Wales (Westminster)

Victory is now a real possibility.

Concerns over the Leadbeater assisted suicide Bill in the House of Lords are growing.

Peers deserve great credit for refusing to be railroaded into rushing the Bill through the House of Lords.

They are coming under huge pressure from our opponents.

They are being wrongly accused of ‘filibustering’ (a term from US politics to describe deliberately blocking legislation by endless debating so that time runs out and it falls).

In fact, what is being misleadingly cast as blocking tactics is simply Parliamentary due diligence.

As one senior Labour MP put it:

“It [the Leadbeater Bill] only just scraped through the Commons by 23 votes because MPs were told that the Lords would scrutinise it carefully.

And that’s what the Lords are doing, with every debate revealing more holes and more problems with this proposed law.”

In addition, a More in Common poll published last week found fewer than half of those questioned (44%) expressed the belief that the House of Lords is deliberately trying to delay the Bill rather than taking time to go through legitimate concerns.

Experts and professional groups that have opposed or raised significant concerns include:

• The Royal College of Pathologists warned that its members would have to “review the process leading up to the decision to authorise an assisted death and the circumstances of the assisted death, which they are not qualified to do.” That could include probing whether safeguards were followed or if there was coercion, deception or other serious issues at play.
• The Association for Palliative Medicine, representing over 1,300 palliative medicine doctors in the UK, has stated it “opposes any change in the law to license doctors to supply or administer lethal drugs to a patient to enable them to take their own life.”
• The British Geriatrics Society reported that many of its members are “not confident that effective legal safeguards could be developed to protect older people from unwarranted harms.”
• Academics and Barristers: 73 leading academic experts in the fields of health, end-of-life care and the law signed an open letter to MPs warning that the Bill's safeguards are insufficient and would put vulnerable people at risk.

The Academics and Barristers emphasised that the dangers of allowing individual autonomy to trump all other considerations, the letter warned:

“Laws must be concerned for the safety of the whole population, especially the most vulnerable.”

It also noted that “research has shown that a person’s stated wish to die is frequently unstable and depends on the care and support they receive [or lack of]”.

Former President of the Family Division of the High Court, the late Sir James Munby, stated the Bill falls "lamentably short of providing adequate safeguards".

Former Chief Coroner of England and Wales, Thomas Teague KC, has warned that a key provision in the Bill would prevent coroners from routinely investigating assisted deaths as they would other unnatural deaths, potentially allowing cases of coercion to go undetected.

Disability Rights Groups: multiple disability rights organisations have opposed the Bill, citing concerns that it could put pressure on disabled and vulnerable people to end their lives.

The National Down Syndrome Policy Group has warned that every person with Down Syndrome would be eligible for assisted suicide under the Bill.

Illustrating how dangerous a step this would be, a professional who works with people with Down Syndrome warned:

“Years ago, I did a benefit appeal for a client with Down syndrome.

He was so suggestible [that] he agreed with the benefits assessor that he could successfully navigate across town.

I got the same positive answer when I asked if he could fly an aeroplane.”

The list goes on.

As things stand, the Bill is set to run out of time and fall.

It looks unlikely that Peers will have time to debate all the proposed amendments before the current Parliamentary session ends (late April/early May).

When a session ends, any legislation that has not completed its passage through both Houses of Parliament is generally 'lost' and must start from scratch in the new session.

We must guard against complacency

However, it is too soon to celebrate victory, because:

1. Our opponents are threatening to use the Parliament Acts

These allow the House of Commons to bypass the House of Lords should it repeatedly block a public bill. The Bill’s supporters could circumvent the Lords altogether—avoiding its scrutiny—by reintroducing the Leadbeater Bill in the House of Commons at the next session of Parliament (May 2026), then (if it passes) seek Royal Assent without the Lords’ consent.

• This would require MPs to pass the Bill in the same form it last left the Commons. It could include Lords’ changes from this session, but most of the changes currently under discussion (a) won’t be voted on until report stage, and (b) have in any case been rebuffed by Lord Falconer.

2. Disgruntled opponents could push legislation through in other ways

Presently, some are working to weaken the House of Lords’ powers to scrutinise legislation.

• The Observer reported this month that a new All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for “wholesale” House of Lords reform is being set up by pro-assisted suicide MPs Simon Opher and Kit Malthouse.

The new APPG will look at “how a minority of peers have been able to use filibustering to block a bill”.

(FACT CHECK: a firm majority – around two-thirds – of the 160 Peers who spoke or else were represented across two days of the Second Reading debate last September expressed opposition to the Leadbeater assisted suicide Bill.)

While APPGs have no official law-making powers, when they are well-funded – as pro-Bill groups tend to be – they can have considerable influence among fellow politicians and feed friendly media outlets propaganda to print and broadcast.

The coming weeks and months will be crucial.

Winning the media war is vital.

We are bracing for media attacks on those Peers who refuse to be bullied into allowing vulnerable people to be abandoned to systematic killing or see the ‘checking and balancing’ role of the House of Lords undermined.

Indeed, former Telegraph and Spectator editor Lord Moore, warned in December that lobbyists working for our opponents are already attempting to influence the debate in Parliament:

“I know very well what happens—how to recognise when we’re being pushed to do a story.

“In the last two weeks, all the British media have been pressed very hard, by lobbyists in favour of this [Leadbeater] Bill, to produce a series of highly contentious arguments which attack anybody who tries to debate this Bill fully.”

SECOND: Scotland (McArthur) Bill

Major question marks also hang over the Scottish assisted suicide bill.

1. With the McArthur bill set to be voted on again on 17th March, just 7 weeks before the Scottish Parliament election, Holyrood proponents of that bill are getting nervous. Many MSPs who have doubts about the bill are worried that this might be an election-defining issue for many of their constituents.
2. The Health Committee at Holyrood wrote to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as important legal questions have arisen as to the Bill’s compatibility with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
3. Provisions for the protection of conscientious objection rights for NHS clinical staff — those who would be tasked with carrying out assisted deaths — will have to be stripped out of the Bill at Stage 3 in March because medical regulation is a power over which Holyrood has no legislative competence.

This could be a major stumbling block for our opponents as the area of employment rights is a matter reserved for the UK Government, whose approval would be required before the Bill could come into force. Already, some MSPs who voted for the bill at Stage 1 are expressing concerns about the conscience protection for medics and nurses being removed from the Bill.

BUT should these legal wrangles be settled in time and the final (Stage 3) vote scheduled for mid-March be lost, the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill would pass.

Should that happen, our opponents would gain valuable political capital for law change south of the border, arguing on ‘equality’ grounds that the people in other parts of Great Britain (including England and Wales) should also be legally entitled to an assisted death.

The best outcome would be for the Scottish bill to be voted down next month.

The final vote is expected to be very close.

A CNK social media campaign targeted at Scottish voters is a major priority.

We urgently need Scots to contact their MSPs to make their concerns over the Bill clear, and with the Scottish elections due in May, there couldn’t be a better time to make their case.

THIRD: Isle of Man

The Isle of Man’s landmark Assisted Dying Bill – the first to be passed in Great Britain – is being held up.

It needs to secure Royal Assent before the end of the current administration (September 2026) before it can come into force.

But this may NOT happen.

Major development

Last year, I wrote to the then-Lord Chancellor & Secretary of State for Justice, Shabana Mahmood, arguing that the Manx Bill contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights.

I pointed out that, should the Lord Chancellor recommend the Bill for Royal Assent (the final stage in a bill becoming law), it may breach the UK’s international obligations.

The Manx bill requires the UK government’s approval before it can receive Royal Assent.

Last week, the island's Chief Minister, Alfred Cannan, announced that the UK Ministry of Justice had asked for clarification on codes of practice to accompany the Manx bill, regarding matters relating to human rights law compliance mentioned in my letter, specifically:

• Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which upholds the ‘right to life’

The MOJ has also asked for clarification about capacity legislation in the Isle of Man. Mr Cannan stated that the Bill “…cannot commence until safeguards, oversight mechanisms and protections are in place…”

If amendments have to be made on the face of the bill, the proposed legislation would need to be debated again by the House of Keys, and considered also by the Legislative Council, the upper chamber of the Manx Parliament (Tynwald). At present, the two Governments are considering a Code of Practice which CNK believes is insufficient to meet the requirements of Article 2.

Care NOT Killing needs donations to stop assisted suicide from being legalized in the UK (Donation Link).

We cannot neatly separate assisted suicide from suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I was reading the article by Adam James Pollock's that was published by the Critic on January 12, 2026 about the debate on the assisted suicide bill in the British House of Lords. The article titled: Rebranding Suicide: We cannot neatly separate assisted dying from suicide. I have decided to republish it rather than comment on it.

By Adam James Pollock

During Committee Stage scrutiny of the assisted suicide Bill in the House of Lords, a radical Labour Peer named Baroness Hayter sent shivers down the spines of all those who understand the importance of suicide prevention.

On the first day of the Bill’s scrutiny following the Christmas recess, on Friday, 9 January, Baroness Hayter argued that assisted suicide “is not a life or death issue”, and asserted that it is not really suicide at all, simply because those concerned would die anyway. Hayter appeared to claim that terminally ill people who end their own lives cannot be said to have done so by suicide.

Regrettably, this is not the first time the noble Lady has made such dubious comments. Last year, she intervened in a speech opposing the legalisation of assisted suicide to argue that it is currently “completely legal for [individuals] to commit suicide without anyone doing any checks about whether they have capacity, ability or anything else. So the Bill is in fact adding a safeguard that is not there at the moment, because at the moment someone can take their own life.”

Rather than seeking to prevent individuals from ending their lives, Baroness Hayter appeared to suggest that legalising assisted suicide would give individuals with suicidal ideation a clearer, more definite route that they could take towards ending their lives, and that this might be a positive thing.

Hayter has espoused similarly confounding nonsense on other occasions too. During the House of Lords select committee scrutiny of the assisted suicide Bill in the autumn, she made another revealing remark, arguing that the legislation would add “safeguards” for those who already “take their own lives early”. Hayter has also insisted that “suicide is not an offence” and that “people have an absolute right to commit suicide”. In a nation that funds suicide prevention campaigns and mourns every death by suicide as a tragedy, making such statements unqualified is remarkable.

On another occasion, Hayter, a previous General Secretary of the radical Fabian Society, argued that legalising assisted suicide would be “a great improvement to the status quo” in that at the moment, “someone can go to Switzerland or, indeed, commit suicide themselves here, but there are no safeguards whatsoever”. The clear safeguard that assisting an individual in any way to end their own life is quite rightly currently illegal appears to be lost on Hayter.

This is the doublespeak of the assisted suicide lobby: legalising assisted suicide to protect people from suicide. We are told that legalised lethal drugs for the terminally ill are “safeguards” against suicide by other means. We are told that suicide carried out with state approval ceases to be suicide at all.

Kim Leadbeater MP, the Bill’s sponsor in the Commons, took the same approach when she said she found it “very uncomfortable” to hear her Bill described as legalising assisted suicide because, she claimed, the terminally ill “are definitely not suicidal.” Yet her Billamends the Suicide Act 1961, to make lawful the act of “providing assistance to a person to end their own life.” If that does not describe suicide, it is hard to imagine what would.

Like Hayter, Leadbeater draws a distinction between suicide that is to be discouraged and suicide that is to be offered on prescription. Both women appeal to compassion; both rely on evasion. In October, I wrote in these pages about Leadbeater’s hypocrisy in attending a suicide prevention charity exhibition and calling for “the need for continued work on suicide prevention”, while at the same time spearheading the effort to legalise putting the onus of assisting suicide on the state.

The six-month prognosis test, which would determine an individual’s eligibility for assisted suicide, only adds to the absurdity of the situation. There is no moral alchemy that turns a suicide into an act of “care” simply because a doctor makes a guess at how close the individual may be to death anyway. As we have seen in Canada, once suicide is treated as healthcare, the boundaries dissolve, and eligibility criteria are rapidly expanded.

And that, perhaps, is the point. Once society accepts the idea that some suicides are rational, the cornerstone of its entire argument begins to crumble. Assisted suicide becomes the test case for whether we still believe that it is a good thing to safeguard life.

Suicide cannot be rebranded into compassion by the doublespeak of a grim band of fanatical campaigners. It remains what it has always been— the tragedy that is the deliberate, premature ending of a life — and it should continue to be the duty of both our laws and our culture to prevent it in all circumstances.

Previous articles on the UK assisted dying bill (Articles Link).

Welsh doctors and nurses urge Senedd to reject assisted dying bill.

Press Release from Odoc Wales

RELEASE DATE: Monday 12th January 2026

RELEASE TIME: IMMEDIATE

Over 250 Doctors and Nurses Urge Senedd to Reject Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Notable signatories include, Dame Hine, Professors Hain, Clarke, A. Finlay, Hope-Gill, Rawlinson, Taubert and over 120 doctors plus nurses, specialist nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, pharmacists, medical managers, radiographers, paramedics and physiologists.

In an open letter, more than 250 healthcare professionals working across Wales have united to express serious concerns about the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. They are calling on Members of the Senedd to reject the forthcoming Legislative Consent Motion scheduled for Tuesday, 20 January.

Despite demanding clinical roles—primarily within NHS Wales—these professionals have coordinated their response to highlight the risks this legislation poses to the future of Welsh healthcare.

Dr Sarah Davies, a respiratory physician in North Wales, stated:

“It is vital that our elected representatives understand that this vote concerns the specific details of this proposed legislation and how it will operate. It is not a general vote on assisted suicide.”

Palliative care physician Dr Victoria Wheatley added:

“Currently, people living in a quarter of Wales cannot access a hospice bed. This means they lack real choice. Funding a state-sponsored suicide service without first ensuring comprehensive palliative care is not the right approach for Wales.”

Consultant psychiatrist Dr Stuart Porter warned:

“There are real concerns that this Bill will undermine Wales’ Suicide Prevention and Self-Harm Delivery Plan (2025–2028). Psychiatrists have repeatedly highlighted that the Mental Capacity Act was never designed for this purpose, and the proposed role for psychiatrists on the panel is not supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists.”

Former Chief Medical Officer for Wales, Dame Deidre Hine, also voiced her opposition, citing the unintended consequences of changing the law and the risks to vulnerable groups such as homeless and disabled individuals.

Professor Hope-Gill raised further concerns about the sweeping Henry VIII powers embedded in the Bill and its reliance on secondary legislation for key operational details. Cross-border implications are significant, with 13,300 Welsh residents registered with GPs in England and over 21,100 English residents registered with GPs in Wales.

The signatories conclude:

“This Bill undermines devolved independence in healthcare and poses unacceptable risks to patient safety and equity. We urge Members of the Senedd to reject legislative consent for this deeply flawed Bill.”

For media inquiries and a pdf copy of the letter and signatories please contact Alistair Thompson of Team Britannia PR on: 07970 162225 or by email: alistair@teambritanniapr.com

ENDS

Editors Notes:

Our Duty of Care is a group of healthcare workers who oppose the intentional killing of patients by assisted suicide or euthanasia.

We are a campaign that is supported and administered by the Care Not Killing Alliance.

*As this story is dealing with suicide, please could we ask that you include details about organisations that offer help and support to vulnerable people who might be feeling suicidal such as the Samaritans, CALM or similar - Thank you.*

UK assisted suicide bill makes coercion and deception easier.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Aine Fox reported for the Independent (UK) on October 23, 2025 that a retired judge is concerned that the UK assisted suicide bill, that has already passed in the House of Commons and is now being debated in the House of Lords, will make coercion easier because the coroner will not investigate these deaths:

Retired Judge Thomas Teague told peers at a House of Lords select committee that the current draft legislation to legalise assisted dying risks making coercion easier and for some cases to ” slip through” if coroners are not involved as the default.

Fox reported that:

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill currently states that an assisted death would not be classified as an “unnatural death” and therefore would not require automatic investigation by a coroner.

The Royal College of Pathologists and Mr Teague have previously voiced their opposition to this element of the Bill and both gave further evidence to peers on Thursday.

Teague is concerned that the language of the law will lead to coercion, pressure and deception.

He warned that categorising assisted deaths, which he said “are in reality, deaths by suicide”, as natural deaths could have the “unfortunate and unintended consequence of tending to obscure and conceal those risks, and of making it easier for persons who want, for example, to exercise coercion or pressure or deception to do so”.

Teague stated that the assisted suicide bill reversed 200 years of scrutiny.

He said clause 38 of the Bill as it stands was effectively reversing part of a system for scrutinising deaths that had been 200 years in the making and described the proposed approach as “frankly absurd”.

Fox reported that Dr Suzy Lishman form the Royal College of Pathologists agreed with Teague:

Dr Suzy Lishman, from the Royal College of Pathologists, when asked about whether it would be safe to remove coronial oversight, told the committee: “No, I don’t believe it would be safe.”

The House of Lords Select Committee is examining the Kim Leadbeater assisted suicide bill. The House of Lords Committee will make recommendations and possible amendments before they to to a final vote on the bill.

More information about the UK assisted suicide bill (Articles Link).

J.K. Rowling opposes assisted suicide.

This article was published by National Review online on September 24, 2025.

By Wesley J Smith

I have always believed that liberals should be leading opponents of assisted suicide. After all, two of the core tenets of liberalism are (supposed to be) protecting vulnerable people from exploitation and promoting equality among all people.

But other than disability-rights activists, most liberals tend to support legalization based on “choice.”

Mega author J. K. Rowling, of Harry Potter fame, is definitely a political liberal. Indeed, her activism pushing against gender ideology is founded in protecting children and securing women’s private spaces.

J.K. Rowling

Now, with legalization having passed the U.K. House of Commons and the bill now being debated in the House of Lords, she has come out in opposition to state-sanctioned assisted suicide. From The Lion story:

Author J.K. Rowling has announced she no longer supports the legalization of assisted suicide, citing concerns about the risks of coercion and the message such laws send to vulnerable people.

Her comments come as the U.K.’s House of Lords debates the Assisted Dying Bill, which would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales to request physician-assisted death under limited conditions.

“I used to believe in assisted dying,” Rowling wrote in a post on X. “I no longer do, largely because I’m married to a doctor who opened my eyes to the possibilities of coercion of sick or vulnerable people.”

Her husband, Dr. Neil Murray, is a practicing physician who she says helped her understand the potential dangers.

Not to mention that with legalization, some suicidal people are offered facilitation instead of prevention, thereby transforming them into a perceived killable caste whose lives are of lesser value.

Good for Rowling. Liberal leaders of popular culture usually boost assisted suicide when they take a side. I hope her advocacy convinces the Lords to kill the bill instead of the ill.

Link to other articles by Wesley Smith (Articles Link).

Disabled member of the British House of Lords is being harrassed for opposing assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Tanni Grey-Thompson

David Maddox reported for the Independent that Tanni Grey-Thompson, the former Paralympian star athlete who opposes the assisted suicide bill, revealed that she has received abusive messages from people because she opposes the Kim Leadbeater assisted suicide bill. Maddox reported:

Britain’s leading former Paralympian turned House of Lords peer has revealed she has been sent abusive emails accusing her of being "responsible for people dying in pain" amid her opposition to the assisted dying bill.

Crossbench peer Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson is among those expected to speak in a historic debate on Friday as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill returns to parliament.

A long-time campaigner on the rights of disabled people, she said that while it has been difficult to read some of the correspondence directed at her on what is a divisive issue, she accepts it is "part of the job".

Grey-Thompsons' comments about the abuse she has received became known through her lobbying for more time to debate the assisted suicide bill. Maddox further explained:

Meanwhile, in her interview with the PA news agency, Baroness Grey-Thompson said: "I've had emails, people saying, 'thank you so much for protecting us'. And I've had some incredibly abusive ones as well, saying that I'm responsible for people dying in pain, and it will be on me."

She said her own experience with her mother's difficult death with cancer means she understands people's strong feelings, but insists there should be more focus on improving end-of-life care.

She said: "It's absolutely appalling that people are scared about how they're going to die. But we should be having proper specialist palliative care."

Tanni Grey-Thompson is a long-time disability rights activist who has consistently opposed the legalization of assisted suicide.

Previous articles concerning Tanni Grey-Thompson's position on assisted suicide (Link).