Strong opposition to euthanasia during House of Lords (UK) debate.

The following message was received from the Care Not Killing Alliance (UK).

Dear friends,

Almost two thirds of the 90 speakers in today’s House of Lords Second Reading debate spoke against the Leadbeater Bill, with 85 speeches still to come next Friday (19 September). Many important points came up, but we want to highlight these six.

1. Lord Hacking said his postbag had been almost exclusively opposed to the Bill, and many Peers made a point of thanking those who had written. Lord Rees of Easton (former Mayor of Bristol Marvin Rees) added:

“I have been particularly struck by the hand-written letters which have been sent, which speaks about people’s real dedication.”

2. Oxford academic Lord Biggar cited polling commissioned by Care Not Killing:

“Some—typically privileged like us—would have a choice between decent palliative care and assisted suicide. But others—poorer and less white—would have to choose between grievous suffering and killing themselves. That is why two-thirds of the more than 5,000 people polled by Focaldata last November wanted end-of-life care sorted out first before any thought is given to assisted suicide.”

Baroness Bennett claimed “clear and settled” public support for “assisted dying”, but CNK polling also found that public support is in fact fluid, collapsing (to just 11%) after key arguments and evidence are heard. (Read more).

3. Several Peers said that despite supporting the principle, the Bill needed significant amendment. Former Health Minister Lord Bethell was devastating in his assessment:

“Without substantial clarification and reform, it could devastate the NHS and our healthcare system. We must address its fundamental flaws, or this legislation should take pause before it irreparably damages our health system.”

4. As if to illustrate warnings that this bill would be susceptible to extension – a “first step” – Baroness Murphy referred to “the Canada model—a rather wider scheme, which I would have supported strongly… I am content to go through with this Bill as it is, but I am one who would like to see in the future an expansion of eligibility criteria.”

5. The Lords Delegated Powers Committee and Lords Constitution Committee issued significant new reports this week, with barrister Lord Carlile saying of the former: “by the calm standards of that committee, its criticism is excoriating”. 

Key conclusions:

The Bill’s use of “delegated powers… gives sweeping, unspecified and unjustified powers to the Government while removing Parliament’s scrutiny role.”

“It is constitutionally appropriate for the House of Lord to scrutinise the Bill and, if so minded, vote to amend, or reject it.”

6. Given that this bill relies on predicting that someone is within six months of death, Lord Polak hit home when he said he spoke “as someone who was given six months to live 37 years ago.” KC and former MP Baroness Prentis of Banbury’s personal perspective was also very affecting:

“I have recently been diagnosed with aggressive cancer and my treatment starts this week. My prognosis is excellent… But there have been some very low moments in the past few weeks… I ask noble Lords to think hard about me, with all my advantages, feeling like a burden… think about the vulnerable and how easy it is for them to feel that their lives are not worth living.”

Please keep engaging with Peers, and please know that your letters (and emails!) are making a difference.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Gordon MacDonald, Chief Executive.

Daniel Cuffe, Campaign Manager.

The British House of Lords can defeat the assisted dying bill

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The House of Lords is debating the Kim Leadbeater assisted dying bill that passed in the UK House of Commons on June 20, 2025.

Many writers have suggested that the House of Lords cannot defeat the assisted dying bill, only amend it. 

An article written by Joshua Rozenberg and published by A Lawyer Writes on September 12, 2025 explains that the House of Lords can defeat the assisted dying bill. Rozenberg explains:

It is “constitutionally appropriate” for the House of Lords to scrutinise the assisted dying bill “and, if so minded, vote to amend or reject it”, the Lords constitution committee says in a report issued ahead of today’s second reading debate.

The all-party committee reminds peers that the upper house of parliament plays an important role in the legislative process and that members should not feel constrained by the fact that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was passed by the House of Commons in June.

That’s because this is a private members’ bill, introduced in the Commons by Kim Leadbeater MP and in the Lords by Lord Falconer of Thoroton. The Salisbury-Addison convention, under which “bills foreshadowed in a government’s manifesto are given a second reading in the Lords, are not subject to wrecking amendments and are passed in reasonable time”, does not apply.

This is an important article since others have stated that the House of Lords can only suggest amendments to the bill, a message that is designed to discourage the Lords from attempting to defeat the bill.

The Leadbeater assisted dying bill cannot be made "safer" by amendments. Even with amendments to tighten the bill, soon after legalization the euthanasia movement will work to expand the legislation.

Legalizing assisted suicide creates a legal situation whereby the law allows one group of people to have the right in law to kill other people. Once killing becomes acceptable the line in the sand immediately shifts and opens the door to the further expansion of killing.

There is only one clear line in the sand, that being you cannot kill people.

White House: Assisted suicide is "state-subsidised suicide."

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Telegraph reported on June 26, 2025 that the US State Department stated that the British Parliament passing of the Leadbeater assisted suicide bill is "supporting state-subsidised suicide." 

The British assisted suicide bill passed on June 20, 2025 by a vote of 314 to 291 and will soon be debated in the British House of Lords.

The Telegraph reported that the US State Department sent this message to the British Parliament:

“As the UK Parliament considers support for state-subsidised suicide, euphemistically called a Bill for ‘terminally ill adults’ the United States reaffirms the sanctity of life,” the US bureau of democracy, human rights and labour said.

“The Western world should stand for life, vitality and hope over surrender and death.”

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is pleased with the clear statement from the US State Department. 

We are also asking our supporters to urge New York Governor Kathy Hochul to veto the New York assisted suicide bill that passed in the New York Assembly on April 29, 2025 and in the New York Senate on June 9, 2025. The bill has not been signed by Governor Hochul yet. 

We need to urge Governor Hochul to reject state-subsidised suicide - veto assisted suicide bill A136/S138 (Link to contact Governor Hochul)

Assisted Suicide bill (UK) must be killed off.

The Times (UK) published, on May 14, their position on the Kim Leadbeater assisted suicide bill. Times view: Assisted dying bill must now be killed off.

Warnings about the bill are growing louder by the day. MPs must now vote down these ramshackle and dangerous proposals.

Scarcely has a piece of legislation been about to become law amid such dire warnings. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will return to the House of Commons on Friday, when MPs will ­decide whether to allow the legalisation of assisted dying to proceed. In the earlier stages of this bill fears were voiced about the lack of safeguarding to avoid abuses such as coercion. Legal experts ­expressed their worries that the poorly drafted text would provide a starting point for eventual mission creep in assisted suicide rather than ­defining strict limits on its use.

Since the bill was given the initial approval by MPs last November, these fears have only grown. Some are due to the haphazard nature of the ­legislation: such a fundamental change in the role of the state should not have been conducted via a ­private member’s bill. It has been uneasily guided by its originator, the Labour MP Kim Leadbeater. Too often she has failed to engage or show understanding to those with legitimate concerns, ­instead adopting a recalcitrant attitude. But it is not too late for MPs to think again.

If any further proof were needed that the bill is a ramshackle affair, sorely lacking in precision, MPs should look to the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The professional body this week changed its mind on the bill, expressing “serious concerns” about the proposed legislation as drafted in ­relation to mental illness.

The college is ­worried that the physical effects of mental illness (such as anorexia) should not be used as a pretext for ­assisted suicide. MPs should be particularly alarmed by the fact that the college does not ­display an institutional aversion to assisted dying; its official position is neutral. Given that psychiatrists would play a critical role in the process, with one required on each panel adjudicating an ­application for assisted dying, the objections of their college should be terminal for the bill.

Dr Trudi Seneviratne, the college registrar, ­stated on Wednesday that it was Ms Leadbeater’s bill in particular that was the problem. She also warned that Britain simply did not have enough consultants to deal with the workload that could be generated by assisted suicide. With the government estimating that more than 7,500 terminally ill people could seek state support to end their lives each year, the burden on the NHS would be substantial.

Ms Leadbeater’s bill has been through a turbulent legislative journey. The decision to loosen safeguarding measures by removing the oversight of a High Court judge in each case may have been well-intentioned in trying to ease the strain on the legal system, but it has spooked MPs who bought into Ms Leadbeater’s assurances that there would be no slippery slope. Although her bill passed the House of Commons with a majority of 55, there are indications that support is ebbing away. This newspaper has reported that 42 per cent of MPs polled say they will vote against the bill with 36 per cent in favour.

Some MPs may be minded to use Friday’s vote to improve the proposed law but sticking plaster will not do on such a fundamental matter. Ms Leadbeater has shown herself unwilling to ­listen to the concerns of experts and her bill’s dangerous flaws remain unfixed. The Royal College of Physicians also expressed concern this week about its deficiencies, saying changes were needed to ­protect patients and medical staff. A BBC survey of GPs suggests a majority are opposed.

It is striking that Sir Keir Starmer will not be present for the votes. The prime minister, who has tacitly endorsed assisted dying, will be away at a summit in Albania. It is his fault that assisted dying was relegated to a private member’s bill, with all too predictable results, presumably to distance Labour from any backlash. That hasn’t worked: voters believe the bill is government policy. This a bad bill beyond repair. It needs to be killed off.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) is calling on MPs to consider serious concerns about the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill for England and Wales, ahead of the pivotal Commons Report stage debate and Third Reading.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists (UK) Press Release (May 13) (Link to the Press Release)

With too many unanswered questions about the safeguarding of people with mental illness, the College has concluded that it cannot support the Bill in its current form. 

RCPsych is once again sharing its expert clinical insight to support MPs in making informed decisions ahead of the debate in Westminster on Friday 16 May 2025.  

During the Committee stage of the parliamentary process, the College raised questions about the assessments of the coordinating doctor and independent doctor, and is now raising further questions about the multidisciplinary panel (which would include a psychiatrist) being proposed by the Bill. 

The RCPsych wants MPs to consider the following ahead of the debate and Third Reading: 

1. Terminal illness is a risk factor for suicide: Should the Bill become law in England and Wales, it needs to set out clearly how and at what point a clinician would be deemed to have discharged their duty of care to those who are at risk of self-harm or suicide under existing legislation and codes of practice.
2. There should be a requirement for a holistic assessment of unmet need: Treatable needs such as intolerable pain, financial hardship and inadequate care or housing can make a person want to die. Yet the Bill makes no provision to assess unmet needs at any stage, nor consult others involved in the person’s care or life.
3. Assisted dying/assisted suicide (AD/AS) is not a treatment: AD/AS does not aim to improve a person’s health and its intended consequence is death. The Bill does not specify whether AD/AS is considered a treatment option and this ambiguity has major implications in law in England and Wales. Should this Bill proceed, it should be explicit that AD/AS is not a treatment option.
4. The Mental Capacity Act does not provide a framework for assessing decisions about ending one’s own life: The Mental Capacity Act was created to safeguard and support people who do not have the capacity to make decisions about their care or treatment or matters like finances. Should the Bill become law in England and Wales, implications for both the Mental Capacity Act and Mental Health Act need to be considered. How would clinicians assess the new kind of capacity to decide to end one’s life that is framed in the Bill? How would clinicians protect and empower people with terminal illness to decide whether or not to end their own life, while at the same time detain those who are at risk of suicide so that they can be urgently treated?
5. It is not clear what a psychiatrist’s role on a multidisciplinary panel would be: If this Bill proceeds in England and Wales, any role a psychiatrist plays in an AD/AS process should be consistent with the core duties of the profession, including determining whether a person’s wish to die can be remedied or treated.
6. There are not enough consultant psychiatrists to do what the Bill asks: As things currently stand, mental health services simply do not have the resource required to meet a new range of demands.
7. Professionals must be able to conscientiously object to involvement in any part of the process: We are pleased to see that the Bill no longer requires medical professionals who do not wish to be involved to refer a person to another clinician, but they are still required to signpost patients to information on AD/AS. For some psychiatrists who wish to conscientiously object, this would constitute being involved in the AD/AS process.
8. Robust professional standards and oversight would need to be in place: Any professional involved in assessments for AD/AS would need to be adequately experienced, trained, and independently overseen.
9. Physical effects of a mental disorder shouldn’t make a person eligible for assisted dying/assisted suicide: If the Bill proceeds in England and Wales, it must exclude the physical effects of mental disorder, such as anorexia or dementia, as the basis for eligibility for AD/AS. 

Dr Lade Smith CBE, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said: 

"After extensive engagement with our members, and with the expertise of our assisted dying/assisted suicide working group, the RCPsych has reached the conclusion that we are not confident in the Terminally Ill Adults Bill in its current form, and we therefore cannot support the Bill as it stands. 

"It’s integral to a psychiatrist’s role to consider how people’s unmet needs affect their desire to live. The Bill, as proposed, does not honour this role, or require other clinicians involved in the process to consider whether someone’s decision to die might change with better support. 

"We are urging MPs to look again at our concerns for this once-in-a-generation Bill and prevent inadequate assisted dying/assisted suicide proposals from becoming law."

Dr Annabel Price, Lead for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in England and Wales at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said: 

"The College has spent decades focused on preventing people from dying by suicide. A significant part of our engagement on this Bill to date has been to point out that people with terminal physical illnesses are more likely to have depression. Terminal illness is a risk factor for suicide, and unmet needs can make a person’s life feel unbearable. But we know that if a person’s situation is improved or their symptoms treated, then their wish to end their life sooner often changes. 

"The Bill does not specify whether assisted dying/assisted suicide is a treatment option – an ambiguity that has major implications in law. It is our view that these proposals should not be considered a treatment as assisted dying/assisted suicide does not aim to improve a person’s health. Furthermore, the Mental Capacity Act in England and Wales offers no framework for assessing such a decision. 

"This Bill proposes that psychiatrists be involved through assessments of mental capacity as part of routine psychiatric practice and in a safeguarding role on a panel. But mental health services do not currently have the resource required to meet a new range of demands. 

"If this Bill proceeds, any role a psychiatrist plays in an assisted dying/ assisted suicide process should be consistent with the core duties of the profession, including determining whether someone’s wish to die can be remedied or treated."

View our full briefing document (PDF)

Scotland assisted suicide vote: eugenics then, euthanasia now.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Madeline Grant was published in the Telegraph on May 13, 2025 in response to the vote on the Scottish assisted suicide bill. Sadly, the Scottish parliament passed the assisted suicide bill (at second reading) by a vote of 70 - 56.

In the name of progress: eugenics then, euthanasia now, Grant argues that in the past, eugenics was considered progressive and look at the atrocities associated with eugenics. 

Today euthanasia is considered progressive. Grant writes:

It was in the name of progress that the Fabian and socialist eugenicists – from Beatrice and Sidney Webb to Bertrand Russell and Marie Stopes – advocated the sterilisation of the disabled and sick during the 20th century. It was in the name of progress that George Bernard Shaw supported “the socialisation of the selective breeding of man”, even, chillingly, proposing the euthanasia of the mentally ill and other members of the “unfit” classes via “extensive use of the lethal chamber”. In short; a very dangerous word indeed. This isn’t just a history lesson either; the groups these people supported still exist. Dignity in Dying, the main advocacy group for assisted dying, was founded by a member of the Eugenics Society and was known until 2006 as The Voluntary Euthanasia Society.

Grant then comments on the current assisted suicide debate in the UK:

In our own day, the same concept is being invoked once more as a sort of unanswerable force. The debate over assisted suicide is intensifying on both sides of the Border this week, as Kim Leadbeater’s Private Members’ Bill returns to Parliament and Holyrood MSPs voted in favour of a similar Bill proposed by Lib Dem Liam McArthur. In her efforts to champion her Bill on social media, the former is emerging as someone with Van Gogh’s ear for diplomacy; both tactless and self-aggrandising. This week she dismissed opponents as “scaremongering and ideological”, while quoting praise of herself from a supporter, describing her as a “social reformer”. At least irony hasn’t been assisted with its death.

"The inconvenient truth," Grant goes on:

is that, in this case progress involves the sidelining and rejection of the very people whose needs it claims to advance. The Royal College of Physicians recently published a statement warning that the Bill’s “deficiencies” render it unsafe for patients and doctors. Was this “scaremongering”? Every user-led disability group opposes the change, as do a majority of palliative care professionals. Are they “ideologues” too?

Grant then refers to the former Scottish Tory Leader, Ruth Davidson's support for assisted suicide because she wants to be on the "right side of history":

It is telling that despite supporting assisted suicide in principle, former Scots Tory Leader Ruth Davidson couldn’t quite endorse the parallel Bill before Holyrood in its current form. Instead, in a column this week, she urges MSPs simply to trust that they will be able to iron out any problems at a later date. She also cites the number of countries around the world offering assisted suicide as if this, in itself, constituted an argument. What many of these jurisdictions actually show is quite the opposite to Davidson’s Panglossian faith that everything will work itself out.

Grant then digs into the deceptive language used in the debate:

A particularly invidious aspect of this debate has been the manipulation of language. Not only is there a tendency to imply, per Leadbeater, that the pro-side has a monopoly on compassion, relatives’ understandable efforts to prevent their loved ones from taking their own lives have sometimes been reframed as “coercion”. During the “expert” witness testimony, one Australian MP referred to “assisted dying” in exquisitely Orwellian fashion, as a form of “suicide prevention”. There has even been some squeamishness about using the word “suicide” at all, though the Bill would by definition amend the 1961 Suicide Act. It’s as if they fear this serious change to the social fabric will be impossible without annexing language to limit what their opponents may say. And now, showing tragedy and farce are far closer than we think, Kim Leadbeater is apparently a “social reformer”.

Grant notes:

The irony is that Leadbeater and her allies no doubt think of themselves and their actions as progressive. Yet each of them is simultaneously engaged in the business of ignoring the voices of the poor and the vulnerable.

Grant concludes by arguing that Leadbeater is doing more to undo social healthcare than Thatcher did with privatisation.

This Bill is so comprehensively at odds with the principles of previous social reform that enacting it will mean rewriting the Bill on which the National Health Service was forged. The legislation is so far-sweeping that the Bill’s proponents may become the first people to undo the basic healthcare principle that life should be preserved. This is worth restating for all the “sensibles” out there; it wasn’t Mrs Thatcher or “Tory privatisation”, but a Labour backbencher who will fundamentally change the stated purpose of the NHS – and in a final irony, will do so not in the name of profit but of progress.

More articles on this topic:

• Rush to legalize assisted suicide (UK) - Have the vulnerable become expendable (Link)?

Assisted Dying bill (UK) is losing support.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Eleanor Hayward reported for the Times that a poll by Whitestone Insight, a member of the British Polling Council, asked 103 out of 650 MP's how they planned to vote on the Kim Leadbeater assisted suicide bill at final reading.

The bill returns to parliament, from committee, on May 16.

The poll indicated that 42% of the MP's where planning to vote against the assisted suicide bill, 36% supported the bill, while the others were undecided or planning to abstain from the vote.

The Leadbeater assisted suicide bill passed, on November 29, 2024, at second reading by a vote of 330 to 275. This new poll suggests that the vote has shifted.

The Times reported that:

Some MPs have turned against the bill as it has gone through the committee stage, during which the bill lost its requirement for a High Court judge to sign off each assisted dying application. Dozens of MPs are thought to have only backed the bill at its second reading because of this requirement.

Gordon Macdonald

Dr. Gordon Macdonald, the chief executive of Care Not Killing, told the Times that:

“The more MPs hear about assisted suicide and what it entails, the less likely they are to support changing the law.

“Clearly MPs recognise that removing the requirement for every application to be overseen by the High Court — part of a formal judicial process with the duty to consider all views and the power to summon witnesses — makes the bill much less safe, while the rejection of amendments aimed at protecting the most vulnerable people in our society is making many people think again.

“This bill was sold to parliament and to members of the public as being the safest in the world, yet the truth is this bill if it became law would put the lives of vulnerable people at risk, exactly as we see in every jurisdiction that has legalised assisted suicide or euthanasia.”

To gain back support for her assisted suicide bill, Kim Leadbeater recently urged MPs to back an amendment to the assisted dying bill which would commission a new assessment on the state of palliative care, a move first proposed by the bill’s opponents.

Leadbeater doesn't need to amend the bill in order to commission an assessment on the state of palliative care, nonetheless, this is an attempt by her to convince more MP's to support her assisted suicide bill.

Rush to legalize assisted suicide (UK). Have the vulnerable become expendable?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Sonia Sodha

Sonia Sodha is an Observer columnist who wrote a challenging article that was published by the Guardian on April 13, 2025. Sodha asks if the rush to legalize assisted suicide has made the vulnerable expendable?

Sodha, explains how dangerous the proposed UK assisted suicide bill, that is sponsored by Kim Leadbeater (MP) is. The article begins by telling two stories of people who died by assisted suicide at a clinic in Switzerland:

Last month, ITV News reported on the case of 51-year-old Anne, who travelled to a Swiss assisted suicide clinic to end her own life after her only son died. The first her family knew of it was when they received the goodbye letters Anne had posted them from Switzerland. It follows another case from 2023, when 47-year-old Alastair Hamilton went to the same Swiss clinic after telling his mother he was going on holiday. He had been suffering from stomach problems but had no diagnosed illness.

Sodha explains that similar stories have been reported in Canada.  She then comments on the reality of what a six month terminal diagnosis means:

...That’s more subjective than it might sound: in Oregon, for example, doctors have interpreted terminal illness to include malnutrition from eating disorders, and the assisted dying bill’s sponsor, Kim Leadbeater, rejected amendments backed by eating disorder charities to prevent this happening here. Having learning difficulties or a mental illness, feeling depressed or suicidal, or alcohol misuse that might impair judgment would not preclude someone from seeking a medically assisted death. There would be no obligation on assisted suicide providers to notify families their relative is about to die, and no route for relatives to raise concerns about coercion.

Sodha explains what the Leadbeater bill will permit:

Do we really want to live in a society in which a depressed 19-year-old diagnosed with terminal cancer can kill himself with medical assistance, and his parents only find out afterwards? Or in which an older woman who is terminally ill can get an assisted death to avoid being a burden on her adult children, with no opportunity for them to tell her that caring for her would be an act of love rather than obligation? These circumstances would be entirely permissible under Leadbeater’s bill. They are the logical extension of treating medical assistance to kill oneself as healthcare, and as facilitating an adult’s right to make autonomous and private choices. 

Sodha is concerned with the speed in which the assisted suicide bill is being pushed. Leadbeater did delay the next debate on the bill by three weeks. Sodha outlines some of the dangerous flaws with the bill:

The judicial safeguard has been eliminated. Instead of judges signing off assisted deaths, this will fall to panels with no investigatory powers, no ability to summon witnesses or to hear evidence under oath, and no obligation to make inquiries beyond hearing from one doctor. External oversight of the system by the chief medical officer has been removed. The NHS can outsource assisted dying to for-profit companies. There is no proper regulatory regime nor any protection for hospices from being financially penalised for not providing assisted dying on their premises. Doctors can proactively suggest assisted dying to under-18s, who can qualify for it from their 18th birthday. These are just some of the problems with the bill. Little wonder that six Labour MPs have written to colleagues calling it “flawed and dangerous”.

Sodha asks how did the UK get here? She points out that some supporters of assisted suicide acknowledge that wrongful deaths will occur. She writes:

There are some intellectually honest proponents of assisted dying who acknowledge that people would suffer wrongful deaths if it were legalised. The brain surgeon Henry Marsh even said in 2017 “if a few grannies get bullied into it, isn’t that a price worth paying for all the people who could die with dignity?”. Grim, though upfront.

Sodha then points out that most of the assisted suicide supporters ignore the real concerns:

But I have watched open-mouthed as some MPs arguing for assisted dying have chosen to ignore what we know about safeguarding to pretend it’s possible to eliminate the risk of people being coerced into killing themselves, through something as cursory as a bit of training for doctors signing it off. Have they not read the same safeguarding reviews that I have, which make clear that even experienced social workers routinely miss cases of domestic abuse? Have they not digested the implications of NHS scandals, such as mid-Staffs, the maternity scandals, and the Tavistock’s clinic for gender-questioning children? Is it arrogance or ineptitude that makes them think they know better than the country’s leading experts on domestic abuse?

Sodha explains that assisted suicide supporters are not only ignoring concerns with the bill but they accuse opponents of the bill as "acting in bad faith". She writes:

They are perceived as bad folk using words like “risk” and “safeguarding” as a foil for some other irrational opposition to something that’s innately good.

Sodha suggests that many of the supporters of assisted suicide do so with a quasi-religious fervour.

Sodha challenges the British Labour government by stating:

It is an unserious, irresponsible way to make law that could lead to vulnerable or suicidal people being prescribed lethal drugs by the state. Labour seems yet to twig what a serious political problem this could be. Does it really want to be known as the party that failed to fix the NHS so that a parent with probably-terminal cancer could access decent end-of-life care, but instead made it possible for them to kill themselves with medical assistance when they were feeling suicidal?

Sodha completes her article by stating the fundamental point:

I don’t want to live in a society that sees people with complications and vulnerabilities as expendable in reducing the suffering of others. It really is as simple as that. And it distresses me immeasurably that there are MPs who cannot see this is precisely what this bill would achieve.

Previous articles about the UK assisted suicide bill:

• British MP who supported assisted suicide is opposing the assisted suicide bill (Link). 
• The UK assisted dying bill gets more dangerous by the day (Link). 
• UK assisted suicide bill is losing support and can be defeated (Link). 
• Follow the money. Members of Scottish parliament accept money from? (Link).
• Scotland's assisted suicide bill is dangerous (Link).

Britain and Scotland will vote on assisted suicide bills in May

The Care NOT Killing Alliance in the UK sent an update urging supporters to contact elected representatives in (London UK) and in Scotland, to oppose the assisted suicide bills. The message stated:

Dear Friends:

We learned this week that the Leadbeater Bill’s Report Stage will now commence on Friday 16 May, a delay of several weeks, while the Scottish Daily Express reported today that ‘a vote on the private member's Bill from Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur is expected in the first two weeks of next month, and it must take place before May 23.’

In these next few weeks, we all have an opportunity to influence politicians as they weigh up the risks posed by these bills, and while it’s easy to be cynical, a great many are giving this serious and sincere thought. As SNP MSP Michelle Thomson said today:

‘I started looking at it and instinctively, I was in favour of it. I saw my mother die of cancer and all that she went through… But I’m not making decisions just for my mother, I’m not making it just for me, I’m making decisions for huge sectors of society and that’s why I hope that everybody will look into the matter really carefully and consider all these constituent groups too.’

Care NOT Killing urges their supporters to contact elected representatives. The letter continues:

It was reassuring to hear that Health Secretary Wes Streeting will once again vote against the Leadbeater Bill. Remember, he voted FOR a similar bill in 2015 — parliamentarians can and do change position in light of the evidence.

If the law did change, how would legalised assisted suicide sit alongside existing healthcare concerns? It was reported this week that:

‘Hospitals will receive an “incentive payment” for each patient they remove [from their waiting lists], and a payment cap of 5% of a trust’s waiting list is being scrapped, according to documents seen by the Guardian. It means there is no limit to the payments NHS trusts could receive for taking patients off their lists… The strategy is likely to raise concerns among patient charities that some people may be wrongly removed.’

The letter continues with Professor Kevin Yuill of Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia commented:

‘Nothing bad could possibly come of [the Leadbeater Bill’s] provisions that doctors can bring the topic [of assisted suicide] up and that it will be outsourced to for-profit companies. Everything is fine!’

The letter then looks at what is happening in Canada:

Ultimately, what could healthcare look like a few years after legalisation, when the law has already been extended and people have become desensitised? Dr Ramona Coelho, a member of Ontario (Canada)’s MAiD Death Review Committee (MDRC), pointed this week to this story:

‘Mr. C, diagnosed with metastatic cancer, [who had] initially expressed interest in MAiD but then experienced cognitive decline and became delirious. He was sedated for pain management. Despite the treating team confirming that capacity was no longer present, a MAiD practitioner arrived and withheld sedation, attempting to rouse him. It was documented that the patient mouthed “yes” and nodded and blinked in response to questions. Based on this interaction, the MAiD provider deemed the patient to have capacity. The MAiD practitioner then facilitated a virtual second assessment, and MAiD was administered.’

‘If we truly value dignity, we must invest in comprehensive care to prevent patients from being administered speedy death in their most vulnerable moment, turning their worst day into potentially their last.’

They conclude their letter with a statement from former Peterborough MP Lord Jackson has written this week:

‘Vulnerable people across the UK require MPs to survey the horizon, assess the risks and legislate for the weakest. The Bill process so far has proven us to be inept in this. We must do better. Kim Leadbeater must do better. Objectively, this Bill deserves to fail.’

More articles on the topic: 

• British MP who supported assisted suicide is opposing the assisted suicide bill (Link). 
• The UK assisted dying bill gets more dangerous by the day (Link). 
• UK assisted suicide bill is losing support and can be defeated (Link). 
• Follow the money. Members of Scottish parliament accept money from? (Link).
• Scotland's assisted suicide bill is dangerous (Link).

UK assisted suicide bill relied on Australian pro-euthanasia witnesses.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Anscombe Bioethics Centre (UK) published a research document concerning the emphasis on pro-euthanasia witnesses from Australia who testified in favour of assisted suicide in England and Scotland.

The document titled: Wrong Side of the World: The Misplaced Reliance on Australia in the UK Debate on 'Assisted Dying' focuses on how UK governments relied on Australian witnesses in the assisted dying debate.

David A Jones

Anscombe challenged the reliance on Australian witnesses by stating:

• The fact that the witnesses were all supporters of and most also involved in delivery of ‘voluntary assisted dying’ (VAD) gave the Committees a very one-sided view of the limited evidence;
• There is in fact very little evidence of the impact of these laws in Australia since Victoria has only five years of data and most other Australian jurisdictions have only one or two years;
• Other Australian jurisdictions have diverged from the law in Victoria, so data from Victoria is not a reliable guide to what is happening in those other jurisdictions; 
• VAD in Australia is very different from what is proposed in the Bills in Scotland and in England and Wales – practice in most Australian states is predominantly euthanasia;
• Many of the safeguards enacted in the VAD law in Victoria have been abandoned by other States – increased access has been given priority over safety;
• While Australian witnesses stressed that, in Victoria, ‘there have been no changes to the Act at all’, and claimed that the Government in Victoria ‘will not be reopening the law’, the Minister of Health in Victoria has now announced plans to ‘rewrite’ the law.
  

Anscombe explains who that the Australian witnesses universally supported legalizing assisted suicide. No Australian witnesses who oppose assisted suicide were invited to the UK.

Ancombe pointed out that:

Remarkably, the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee did not hear oral evidence from the United States. Similarly, the Public Bill Committee did not hear oral evidence from Canada, and neither Committee heard from witnesses from the Netherlands, Belgium, or Switzerland.

They then point out that: Alex Greenwich MP gave evidence on the implementation of VAD legislation in New South Wales, he was speaking on the basis of less than one full year of data.

Anscombe points out that Canada was more relevant than Australia. They state:

However, the law in Canada has since been amended to take it closer to the law in Belgium, and further changes are scheduled. It already overtly includes death for people whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, and it is scheduled in March 2027 to expand this further, from chronic physical conditions to mental health conditions. Quebec has already overtaken Belgium in legislating for advance decisions to end the lives of people with dementia who are not able to provide contemporaneous consent. The rest of Canada is on the same path.

From the Canadian point of view, I noticed how UK governments were originally interested in Canada's experience with euthanasia. When stories related to the negative effect of Canada's euthanasia law were published invitations to speak in the UK dried up for me and for other Canadians.

When the Leadbeater assisted suicide bill was introduced it became clear that UK governments were intentionally ignoring the reality of Canada's euthanasia law

British assisted suicide bill has been delayed

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have good news. The UK assisted suicide bill that is sponsored by Kim Leadbeater (MP) will be delayed. The Leadbeater assisted suicide bill was originally scheduled for its report stage on April 25, 2025, but it has now been delayed until May 16, 2025.

Altha Adu reported for The Guardian on April 8, 2025 that:

The bill, which has undergone a significant number of changes since the initial vote in November, will now return to the Commons on 16 May, instead of 25 April, for its report stage and votes if time allows.

In a letter to parliamentary colleagues, the day before Easter recess begins, Kim Leadbeater said she was “absolutely confident” that postponing the vote would not delay the bill’s passage towards royal assent.

Labour MPs opposed to the legislation had raised concerns with the timing of the vote, fearing their colleagues would not have enough time to consider the bill’s changes during their final week of local election campaigning.

The delay is significant since, if passed in the Commons, the bill will still need to be debated and passed in the House of Lords. 

There were significant changes to the assisted suicide bill, in committee, including the removal of the judicial approval for a death being replaced with a panel of experts (death panel) and the delay in implementation of the bill until January 2029.

There have been many complaints concerning amendments to the bill that would have prevented assisted suicide for vulnerable groups, including people with disabilities, people with mental illness and people with Anorexia, being rejected.

The delay also provides more time to defeat the bill.

The 2024 Netherlands euthanasia data, that was recently released, proving that once euthanasia and/or assisted suicide are legalized that the number and types of approvals for death will continually increase.

Defining assisted suicide as medical treatment

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have been writing about euthanasia and assisted suicide for almost 30 years. During that time I have taken the clear position that killing is not caring and euthanasia and assisted suicide are not medical treatment.

The outcome related to defining medical treatment as including killing is substantial.

Dan Hitchens was published in compactmag.com on March 31, 2025 explaining: How assisted suicide will undo the NHS. The NHS refers to the National Health Service in the UK. Hitchens writes:

Last week, the MPs examining Britain’s assisted suicide bill voted through a very remarkable subclause. A single sentence, tabled by the bill’s chief architect Kim Leadbeater, quietly altered the definition of the National Health Service. The NHS’s original legislation in 1946 laid down that it must “secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England…and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness.” None of which really includes assisted suicide. If Leadbeater’s bill manages to pass its future votes in the Commons and Lords, this might have opened the government to a legal challenge.

I personally consider this change to the assisted suicide bill as revolutionary. Hitchens explains the significance of the amendment to the assisted suicide bill:

Hence the subclause, which allows the Health Secretary to declare that “commissioned VAD [voluntary assisted dying] services” are in fact part of the NHS’s legislative charter. The subclause doesn’t explain why: It just ensures that the government can say so. Which, as the Tory MP Danny Kruger observed, effectively admits that the National Health Service would turn into a different kind of institution. It would, through this tweak to its founding legislation, become the National Health and Assisted Suicide Service. But the alarm was loudest on the other side of the Commons. Labour MPs tend to regard the NHS as their party’s definitive achievement, the greatest edifice of the postwar welfare state built by Clement Attlee’s government. After the subclause went through, six Labour MPs signed a letter calling the bill “irredeemably flawed and not fit to become law,” noting—among a dozen other issues—that it makes “a change to the founding language and purpose of our NHS.”

Professor Sir Louis Appleby, who leads the National Suicide Prevention Strategy for England responded that they work on the principle that:

“Of protecting people at their lowest point, helping them find something worth living for, however bleak life looks.”

“Once the principle behind suicide prevention has been set aside, once any part of the ground has been ceded—not only to allow suicide but to assist it—we have lost something we may not get back.”

Hitchens explains that Kit Malthouse, a Tory MP argues that assisted suicide is not suicide. Hitchens makes reference to Australian MP Alex Greenwich who referred to assisted suicide as:

"an important form of suicide prevention.”

Hitchens explains that defining assisted suicide as part of medical treatment, with relation to the NHS will take the heart out of the NHS especially since Kim Leadbeater, the sponsor of the assisted suicide bill stated that trying to persuade a loved one from assisted suicide may qualify as “coercion.” Hitchens writes:

To recap: Taking your own life isn’t suicide, the provision of lethal drugs is suicide prevention, begging a loved one to stay alive is coercion, and the rejection of a safeguard “creates safeguards.” It is sometimes worth asking, in the words of WS Graham, what is the language using us for? This kind of language, this style of thought, uses us to obliterate what we thought we knew about our duties to each other.

Hitchens comments on how legalizing assisted suicide changes palliative care.

Palliative care, and more specifically hospice care for those nearing the end of life, is one of the signal achievements of modern medicine. Both in removing physical pain, and in addressing the complex emotional needs of the terminally ill, it can be transformative. But in jurisdictions with assisted suicide, it begins to hold a more brutal meaning. One Oregon nurse has lamented that “There is an attitude among many of our clients that ‘If I go into hospice, they’re going to kill me because that’s what a hospice does.’”

Hitchens continues by presenting data from a New Zealand study of healthcare professionals who work within a Hospice setting. The study by Dr Sinéad Donnelly indicates that the legalization of assisted death in New Zealand has changed the nature of hospice care. Hitchens comments on the change in attitude in New Zealand by writing:

Again, knock out the universal principle—we will care for you until the very end—and the atmosphere shifts decisively. There are two kinds of existences: those worth living, and those not worth living. A colder, more impatient, more utilitarian logic begins to work its way into our relationships.

Hitchens concludes his article by stating:

Stepping back a little, it is hard not to see a connection between the assisted suicide bill and the national condition in 2025: our crumbling public services, bewildered government, and extractive rentier economy. Hospices are struggling to stay open. The care sector survives on superhuman self-sacrifice and poverty wages (“a miracle sitting on top of a disgrace,” as one care manager has said.) Working-age parents are squeezed for every last penny and every last minute. There isn’t enough to go around—not enough cash, not enough time, not enough attention. And every one of those problems makes itself felt in the NHS, where waiting lists have hit record highs, 30 per cent of staff feel burnt out, and hospitals are so swamped that one hospital recently advertised for a “corridor care” doctor. Health and social care is perhaps the defining challenge for the current generation of politicians, and officially they all want to solve it. But wouldn’t it be easier, a voice seems to whisper, to just give up?

I believe that the problem goes further than described by Hitchens. When assisted suicide is considered to be medical treatment, the outcome is a requirement to inform everyone who may qualify for it based on the fact that people have a right to know about all medical options.

The reality is that assisted suicide is not medical treatment and in fact, it does not have a medical purpose. It does cause death, but death is not an intentional medical outcome, rather it is a reality of life.

Once assisted suicide is defined as a medical treatment, the legislation will be forced to expand. It becomes discriminatory to limit medical treatment to persons over the age of 18 and you cannot limit medical treatment to someone who is not dying, based on equality, when it can be offered to someone who is dying.

If euthanasia and assisted suicide are defined as medical treatment, then death becomes a treatment for conditions that require excellent care.

British MP who supported assisted suicide, is opposing the assisted suicide bill

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Naz Shah, a Labour MP who originally supported assisted suicide is opposing the Kim Leadbeater assisted suicide bill. The UK assisted suicide bill passed at second reading by a vote of 330 to 275. The bill was debated in committee where there were 393 proposed amendments with only 32 of the amendments accepted.

Shah is one of many MP's who support assisted suicide in principle but are opposing the bill. Opposition to the bill may be the reason why Leadbeater, the sponsor of the bill, recently stated that, if passed, implementation of the assisted suicide bill would be delayed until 2029.

David Maddox, the Political Editor for The Independent, wrote an article that was published on March 30. Maddox explains why Shah is opposing the assisted suicide bill:

A Labour MP who had originally been inclined to vote in favour of Kim Leadbeater’s assisted dying legislation has claimed that the bill now has weaker safeguards than when MPs voted on it in November.

Naz Shah spoke to The Independent in the wake of the laborious and, at times, tetchy committee stage of the controversial bill being completed in parliament last Wednesday.

The Bradford West MP, who served on the committee scrutinising the bill, had hoped that safeguards could be strengthened to make it workable but now claims the legislation is “fundamentally flawed”.

Maddox further reports on why Shah opposes the assisted suicide bill

...Ms Shah has said she is “very disappointed” and “disheartened” with the direction taken after hopes they could ensure the safeguards were robust.

She revealed: “Kim [Leadbeater] is a friend and when she first told me about the bill I was inclined to vote for it. But the more I looked at the details, the more concerns I had.”

Top among these were concerns over the way people who suffer from domestic abuse and have disabilities could potentially be coerced into ending their lives early. As someone who had suffered previously from domestic abuse in a forced marriage, these issues were important to her.

Ms Shah also made headlines during the process when she was forced to leave a session because her hearing aid batteries had run flat. An attempt to push through amendments had seen the session extended despite pleas from Ms Shah that she could not take part.

Maddox reported that Shah tried to amend the bill by strengthening it's "safeguards"

She had also backed attempts to toughen up the bill by ensuring eating disorders such as anorexia could not be given as reasons for assisted dying.

“I talked about a lot with the anorexia stuff, and that’s weakened. The amendment that [Kim Leadbeater] put in, in the capacity bit, that’s actually weakened the bill, not strengthened the bill.

“Then there’s the issue that children are now exposed, that doctors can have this [assisted death] conversation with children. You know, there’s fundamental flaws in the bill, and I just feel disheartened that I’ve gone in trying to help fix it and actually come out, not from my fault, but, you know, with it weakened.”

Maddox reported that Ms Shah was concerned that only 7 of the amendments were accepted were meaningful and none of the accepted amendments were "fundamental ones."

Prognostic criteria are inaccurate for 6 month terminal prognosis.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An editorial that was written by Dr Scott Murray and Dr Simon Etkind that was published in the British Medical Journal on March 12, 2025 explains that prognostic criteria in providing a six month terminal prognosis are inaccurate.

The article is a response to the assisted dying bill in the UK that is sponsored by Kim Leadbeater (MP). The Leadbeater bill states that a person qualifies for assisted dying if they are:

“reasonably expected to die within six months,”

The authors write:

However, the challenges of prognostication in relation to eligibility for assisted dying remain underexplored. Prognostic eligibility criteria are limited by the fact that prognosis is inherently uncertain and there are no valid tools, tests, or clinical examinations that can reliably and safely identify that a person is expected to die within six months.

The authors are concerned with the language of the bill. They write:

Clarity about what is meant by “reasonably be expected to die within six months” is vital so that clinicians can understand the intended beneficiaries of the bill. It could mean that on the balance of probabilities the patient is expected to die within six months, but the word “reasonably” potentially incorporates a wide interpretation of likely prognosis.

I suggest that the use of the term "reasonably be expected to die" cannot be defined and suggests that the bill does not intend to enforce a 6 month prognosis rather the 6 month prognosis is included to suggest that the bill has "rigorous" safeguards.

The authors explain that only 37% of predictions based on a 12 month prognosis are accurate:

Prognostic criteria in legislation on assisted dying imply that accurate prognostication in advanced illness is possible. But clinicians’ predictions are often inaccurate. Looking specifically at the “surprise question” (Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?), a meta-analysis found a positive predictive value of only 37%. Even in cancer, where we would expect a more predictable illness trajectory, the utility of prognostic tools was low over six months.

The authors conclude by stating:

Since uncertainty is inherent in advanced illness, we must embrace it as a trigger for person centred care and planning ahead. Many of the psychological, social, and existential issues raised by uncertainty at the end of life can be addressed through skilled communication and holistic support: core components of timely palliative care. Moreover, if people understand more about the process and timescales of dying, and the potential of palliative care to complement curative care, they may feel in greater control of their situation and empowered to cope with its demands, whether they have access to assisted dying or not.

Irreducible prognostic uncertainty makes it difficult to delineate the scope of assisted dying legislation that uses prognosis based criteria. Further evidence is needed to determine whether prognosis based judgments of eligibility can be consistently and safely applied.

The authors state that based on the uncertainty of a 6 month prognosis that requests for assisted dying should be accompanied by skilled communication, holistic support and palliative care.

I agree that it is impossible to accurately predict that a person has 6 months to live but I suggest that the purpose of the inclusion of a 6 month prognosis is only to claim that the bill has rigorous safeguards. If the bill passes, the 6 month prognosis is likely to be removed through future legislation.