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.
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).
My name is Alex Schadenberg and I am the Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. I work in Canada and also with people world-wide who oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide. Canada is increasingly seen internationally as a cautionary example. The rapid growth in MAiD deaths and the expansion in the types of cases are being closely watched abroad.
Developments in Canada have influenced debates in other countries, including the defeat of the assisted dying bills in Scotland, the UK House of Lords(1) and Slovenia, where assisted suicide was overturned through a referendum.
Rather than extending assisted dying to persons whose sole underlying condition is a mental disorder, Parliament needs to examine how Canada’s assisted dying law is functioning. How has the law been implemented? Is it achieving its intended outcomes? Are there abuses of the law based on its original intention? Does the law require amendment? These questions have never been addressed.
Dr Ramona Coelho stated in her article, published by the MacDonald Laurier Institute on January 5, 2026(2) as a commentary on the Sixth Annual Report on MAiD that:
“Although the report emphasizes self-identified disability, all MAiD recipients are disabled by definition. Disability refers to any long-term impairment that limits participation in life. MAiD is legal for individuals with a “grievous and irremediable” condition, an incurable illness causing irreversible decline in capabilities. Anyone meeting these criteria is by definition disabled, though not all disabled people should qualify for MAiD.
Common conditions listed for Track 2 MAiD reinforce this point. Diabetes appears frequently, and Ontario’s MDRC documented a man who received MAiD for an essential tremor. These are disabilities, yet they do not usually cause the serious decline that MAiD is intended to address. By emphasizing self-identified disability, the report obscures the real story: MAiD eligibility targets disabled people, a concern highlighted by the disability community, the United Nations and human rights watchdogs, and most recently, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”(2)
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has called for repeal of Track 2 MAiD, increased oversight of the law and no further expansion, including the scheduled expansion of MAiD for the sole criteria of mental illness.
For instance, Kiano Vafaeian (26) died by MAiD in Vancouver on December 30, 2025.(3) Kiano was seeking assisted dying in Ontario, where he lived, but his requests for MAiD were not approved by doctors in Ontario.
Kiano then contacted Dr Ellen Wiebe in Vancouver, British Columbia, who assessed him and approved him for MAiD.
Margaret Marsilla, Kiano’s mother, was shocked that her son, who was living with Type 1 diabetes, resulting in Kiano becoming legally blind and also living with significant mental health issues, could have been approved for MAiD.(3)
Kiano was approved as a Track 2 candidate for MAiD. Kiano’s family was never consulted, which is important since Kiano was living with depression and suicidal ideation.(3)
The family did not learn about his death until several days after his death.
If Kiano’s death was the only disturbing MAiD death then one might suggest that his death is an outlier, but in fact there have been many controversial MAiD deaths.
Instead of expanding MAiD further, Parliament needs to examine how the current law has led to outcomes like the death of Kiano. Parliament needs to completely review the euthanasia law.
More broadly, Canada’s assisted dying law is vague. While Health Canada provides guidance, the legal framework allows for wide interpretation and it lacks effective oversight.
Because of time constraints, I will highlight one key issue.
Sections 241 (3) and 241 (3.1) of Canada's Criminal Code states that medical practitioners or nurse practitioners are required only to be “of the opinion” that the eligibility criteria are met. That, in practice, makes accountability extremely difficult, even impossible to prosecute a medical or nurse practitioner in Canada, even when the MAiD death is clearly wrong or deeply disturbing.
The MDRC reports and cases that have already been submitted to you speak to that reality.
Canada should not be considering the expansion of the euthanasia law to include people with mental illness alone but rather Parliament needs to fully review the law.
1.Colby Cosh, “Canada’s horrifying example causes UK to think twice about euthanasia,” (January 31, 2026), online: National Post,< https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canadas-horrifying-example-causes-u-k-to-think-twice-about-euthanasia>
2.Dr Ramona Coelho, “Disabled Canadians should never feel compelled to die. Let’s given them the support they need to live,” (January 5, 2026), online: Macdonald Laurier Institute, <https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/disabled-canadians-should-never-feel-compelled-to-die-lets-give-them-the-support-they-need-to-live-ramona-coelho-in-the-hub/>
3.Sharon Kirkey, “A Doctor took my ‘son’: This 26 year-old was denied assisted death in Ontario but died by MAiD in BC,” (January 30, 2026), online: National Post, <My name is Alex Schadenberg and I am the Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. I work in Canada and also with people world-wide who oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide. Canada is increasingly seen internationally as a cautionary example. The rapid growth in MAiD deaths and the expansion in the types of cases are being closely watched abroad.
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:
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.
Alex Schadenberg Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
I have amazing news.
On March 17, Scotland's parliament voted 69 to 57 to reject Liam McArthur's assisted suicide bill. This is a great victory after the same bill was passed at second reading, in May 2025, by a vote of 70 to 56.
The defeat of Scotland's assisted suicide bill follows the death of the England / Wales Kim Leadbeater assisted suicide bill that has essentially died in the British House of Lords.
“Vulnerable people who are sick, elderly or disabled, can so easily feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to end their lives so as not to be a burden on others.
“Parliament’s first responsibility is to protect its most vulnerable citizens from exploitation and abuse by those who may have a financial or emotional interest in their deaths.”
Independent MSP Jeremy Balfour - born with no left arm and a right arm that ends at the elbow - said disabled people were "terrified" of assisted dying legislation.
He warned the bill would open "a pandora's box" and said there could be "no meaningful protection" against coercion.
"I'm begging you to consider the consequences for the most vulnerable," Balfour said.
Labour's Pam Duncan-Glancy, who uses a wheelchair, urged MSPs to "choose to make it easier to live than to die".
Others raised questions about protections for medics who did not want to participate in assisted dying, and a lack of oversight on doctors who would sign off on the process.
Critics also argued the focus should be on improving palliative care.
The SNP's Ruth Maguire, while also citing concerns about the cost of the proposals, said: "It's not a free choice if you do not have access to good palliative care."
Most medical associations and medical professionals opposed the assisted suicide bill especially after McArthur was forced to acknowledge that Scotland's parliament did not have the legislative right to ensure conscience rights for medical professionals.
Scottish legislators also faced significant pressure in dealing with the reality of Canada's expanive euthanasia law. Last week Russell Findlay, the leader of Scotland's Conservative party switched his position on the assisted suicide bill and stated:
The second concern relates to the possibility that any legislation, no matter how tightly defined, could be potentially widened by way of later court challenges.
It seems not plausible, but inevitable, that people whose conditions so not qualify for assisted dying as legislated for would take action to extend that right to them.
We have seen examples of this 'slippery slope' in other jurisdictions, and I would be deeply uncomfortable at being responsible for legislation that might end up mutating beyond its original remit to, for example, allowing someone with a mental health condition to compel the state to permaturely end their life.
Clearly Findlay was referring to Canada's experience with euthanasia.
This is the third time that Scotland's parliament defeated a bill to legalize assisted suicide. In 2010 Margo MacDonald's assisted suicide bill was defeated by 85 to 16. Patrick Harvie took up the assisted suicide bill in 2014 with that bill being defeated by a vote of 82 to 36 in 2015.
Dr Gordon Macdonald stated in his Care Not Killing Alliance email that:
This has very much been a marathon, not a sprint, but our supporters have time and again answered the call to engage with MSPs and in so doing laid the groundwork for so many to vote as they did tonight. We will need your help again in the future (“this is coming back”, Liam McArthur told journalists this evening) but for now: Thank you.
The defeat of the McArthur assisted suicide bill is a great victory. The experience in all jurisdictions is that legalizing assisted suicide always results in an expansion of the law. Legalizing assisted killing for some situations will always expand to include more reasons to kill. We are thankful that the Scottish parliament voted NO to assisted suicide.
Alex Schadenberg Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
Scottish Parliament
Russell Findlay, the leader of Scotland's Conservative party has switched his position on the assisted suicide bill that is scheduled to go to a vote on March 17, 2026.
In May 2025, Finlay voted in favour of Scotland's assisted suicide bill, time had passed by a vote of 70 - 56. The Herald reported that Findlay backed the general principle of the bill but is now opposing the bill.
According to Andrew Learmonth who writes for the Herald, Finlay is the third MSP who supported the bill and now oppose the bill. Colin Smyth, who also supported the bill, has been suspended from parliament while being investigated for possessing indecent images of children and voyerism.
"However, at the time of voting for the principle of the legislation at State One I also expressed some misgivings about elements of it.
...I am not able to vote for the bill at stage three.
My reasons include the two primary concerns that I raised at Stage One.
The first is that risk that people could be coerced into ending their own lives. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a loving supportive family.
There are already cases of unscrupulous relatives, or 'trusted' medical or legal professionals, exploiting people for financial gain. As a journalist, I reported on the harm caused by Scotland's system of legal self-regulation which remains woefully inadequate in terms of consumer protection.
And even without any coercion from others, some people may feel pressured because they think they have become a 'burden' on loved ones.
The second concern relates to the possibility that any legislation, no matter how tightly defined, could be potentially widened by way of later court challenges.
It seems not plausible, but inevitable, that people whose conditions so not qualify for assisted dying as legislated for would take action to extend that right to them.
We have seen examples of this 'slippery slope' in other jurisdictions, and I would be deeply uncomfortable at being responsible for legislation that might end up mutating beyond its original remit to, for example, allowing someone with a mental health condition to compel the state to permaturely end their life.
Findlay also commented on the fact that Scotland's assisted suicide bill cannot protect conscience rights for health professionals since medical regulation is the pervue of the British parliament.
We thank Russell Findlay for changing his position on the dangerous assisted suicide bill. I suggest that his two primary concerns cannot be limited by a tighter bill, but should always be seen as strong reasons for defeating life and death assisted suicide legislation.
Assisted suicide is not legal in Scotland — I have traveled there three times to fight that agenda — but it is a looming threat again. And now, an amendment to the legalization bill has been proposed that would prohibit prevention efforts at or near places where suicidal people’s lives would be ended. From the ADF International press release:
A Scottish parliamentarian and member of the Health Committee, Patrick Harvie MSP, has proposed an amendment to Scotland’s controversial “assisted suicide” bill that would criminalise discussion of suicide prevention within a large, undefined public area surrounding any building where an assisted suicide might take place.
The vague proposal would forbid any attempts to “influence” a person’s decision to undergo an assisted suicide, such as through conversation with a family member or the display of a suicide prevention poster.
Holy cow! Is Scottish nihilism so thick that it would actually criminalize efforts to save lives? We’ll see. But I guess we shouldn’t be surprised, as advocates oppose the right of medical conscience that would allow professionals to opt out of all complicity in killing patients or assisting their suicides.
Also, this would seem to imply that there will be assisted suicide clinics. And indeed, there is a “MAID house” in Canada where patients go to be killed.
Alex Schadenberg Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Liz Carr & Pam Duncan-Glancy
Craig Paton reported for the Independent on May 13, 2025 on the Not Dead Yet UK rally outside Holyrood (Scottish parliament) as the Liam McArthur assisted suicide bill was debated and voted on.
The rally opposing assisted suicide featured actress Liz Carr and Scottish Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy.
“I am so fed up of having to answer strangers’ questions, even in this day and age, who think that being us must be the worst thing imaginable,” she said to campaigners, which included a number of disabled people.
“That having pain, having difficulty with everyday activities, must mean that it would be better if we were dead – that is not the case.”
Paton reported that Liz Carr qualifies for assisted suicide under the bill.
“But it also has a definition that I would qualify under, I would define myself as a disabled person, but actually the definition of having a progressive condition, I would come under that.
“So the potential for this to include far more than just those with true terminal illnesses … those as well with degenerative conditions, is what concerns so many of us and so many of the people that are here today.”
Scottish Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy, who strongly opposes assisted suicide, also spoke at the rally. Paton reported:
Addressing the dozens of campaigners outside Holyrood, Ms Duncan-Glancy said: “If any of my colleagues are in any doubt whatsoever, if in doubt: don’t.”
She added: “The risk is too high.
“And so I hope that my colleagues will listen carefully to that and will not support this legislation this afternoon.
“I know that I will, on behalf of all of you, go in there and fight for out lives.”
The bill passed at second reading by a vote of 70 to 56. The bill will now go to committee and a final vote is expected later this year.
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.
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)?
Today (Tuesday 13 May), the day on which MSPs will vote on The Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, Not Dead Yet UK are publishing the results of polling conducted on our behalf by Whitestone Insights in relation to the views held by Scots on the impact of this proposed legislation.
The polling shows significant concern from Scots that introducing assisted dying will have a negative impact on disabled people, and shows even stronger concern from people polled who had disabilities. Online interviews were held between 2 and 7 May reaching 1088 people. 298 self-identified as having a disability.
Over 6 in 10 (62%) Scots agree that disabled people who struggle to access the health, social care and other support they need, given the current state of the NHS and social care funding, may be more likely to seek assisted suicide. This rises to over 7 in 10 (71%) for people polled who had a disability.
Two-thirds of (66%) Scots agree that the Scottish Parliament should prioritise improving access to care for disabled people before considering whether to introduce assisted suicide. This rises to over three (76%) for people polled who had a disability.
Disability groups have made it clear that Holyrood should not introduce assisted dying to Scotland but are being ignored by MSPs who appear to be intent on changing the law. Three-quarters (75%) of Scots agree that the views of disabled people and the groups representing their interests should be properly taken into account in the debate surrounding whether to introduce assisted suicide.This rises to 84% for people polled who had a disability.
Pam Duncan-Glancy, MSP for Glasgow, said:
“These statistics show the public share my concerns that legalising assisted dying at a time when health and social care budgets are under sustained pressure is a real risk to people’s lives”
Comment from Mike Smith, former Commissioner at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Chair of its Disability Committee and spokesperson for Not Dead Yet UK said:
“It’s clear from this polling that a significant majority of Scots agree that disabled people’s lives will be threatened if this legislation is passed.
Coercion comes in many forms, whether it’s intentional or more subtle. Most Scots agree some disabled people could feel be encouraged to end their lives even if they don’t want to.
The very existence of this wide-reaching legislation itself would send a message from the state that it would be better for disabled people to opt for assisted suicide. This is hardly surprising when two thirds of people agree assisted suicide could be used as a cost-cutting exercise.
In an environment where people struggle to access the health and social care they need to live a life with dignity, this is not the right time to be risking people’s lives.
The mantra of the disability rights movement is “nothing about us without us”. Nearly 90% of those with a view agree, yet many organisations representing disabled people feel their voices have been ignored in this debate.
In the survey results, disabled people were more likely to agree with every single statement.They know the reality of their lives and how hard they can be. Their voices must be heard and their fears not ignored.
Given 80% of Scots agree that improved access to care has to come before assisted suicide is considered, we urge all MSPs to vote against this bill next Tuesday. It is dangerous and will imperil people’s lives. MSPs should be protecting the right to life for the many whose voices are not as loud as the well-funded campaign to change the law.”
Highlights
Nearly 6 in 10 (59%) Scots agree that disabled people who feel they are a burden on family, friends or society may feel a sense of responsibility to access an assisted death if assisted dying is legalised. Only 23% disagreed (Question 1a). This rises to two-thirds (66%) for people polled who had a disability.
Over 6 in 10 (62%) Scots agree that disabled people who struggle to access the health, social care and other support they need, given the current state of the NHS and social care funding, may be more likely to seek assisted suicide. (Question 1b) This rises to over 7 in 10 (71%) for people polled who had a disability.
Two-thirds of (66%) Scots agree that the Scottish Parliament should prioritise improving access to care for disabled people before considering whether to introduce assisted suicide. (Question 1c)
This rises to over three-quarters (76%) for people polled who had a disability.
55% of Scots agree to 27% disagree that there is a risk that some disabled people could be or feel encouraged to end their lives even though they do not want to. (Question 1d) This rises to two-thirds (66%) for people polled who had a disability.
75% of Scots agree that the views of disabled people and the groups representing their interests should be properly taken into account in the debate surrounding whether to introduce assisted suicide. (Question 1e) This rises to 84% for people polled who had a disability.
54% of Scots agree, versus 28% who disagree that there is a risk that introducing assisted suicide could be used as a cost-cutting exercise instead of providing more expensive care and support to people who need it. (Question 1f) This rises to two-thirds (66%) for people polled who had a disability.
Another way of presenting - If ‘don’t knows’ are removed:
If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, nearly three-quarters (72.2%) agreed that disabled people who feel they are a burden on family, friends or society may feel a sense of responsibility to access an assisted death if assisted dying is legalised (Question 1a). This rises to 75.6% for people polled who had a disability.
If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, three-quarters (75.7%) agree that disabled people who struggle to access the health, social care and other support they need, given the current state of the NHS and social care funding, may be more likely to seek assisted suicide. (Question 1b) This rises to 80.6% for people polled who had a disability.
If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, 8 in 10 (80.2%) Scots agree that the Scottish Parliament should prioritise improving access to care for disabled people before considering whether to introduce assisted suicide. (Question 1c) This rises to 84.9% for people polled who had a disability.
If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, over two-thirds (67.4%) agree that there is a risk that some disabled people could be or feel encouraged to end their lives even though they do not want to. (Question 1d) This rises to 75.3% for people polled who had a disability.
If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, almost 9 in 10 (89.3%) agree that the views of disabled people and the groups representing their interests should be properly taken into account in the debate surrounding whether to introduce assisted suicide. (Question 1e) This rises to 91.9% for people polled who had a disability.
If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, two-thirds (66%) agree that there is a risk that introducing assisted suicide could be used as a cost-cutting exercise instead of providing more expensive care and support to people who need it.. (Question 1f)
This rises to 74.6% for people polled who had a disability.
Background information
Disabled Peoples Organisations in Scotland have come out strongly against the McArthur Bill.This included the following organisations that have issued a joint letter calling on MSPs to oppose the Bill:
Disability Equality Scotland.
Inclusion Scotland.
Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living.
Glasgow Disability Alliance.
People First.
Self Directed Support Scotland.
A Canadian man, Roger Foley, has written powerfully in the ‘Herald’ of his experience as a disabled man living in Canada (where the law changed in 2016):
“As Canada has expanded its assisted dying law, I have faced neglect, verbal abuse, and denial of essential care. I’ve been told my care needs are too much work, and my life has been devalued. Worse still, I have been approached and told by healthcare staff to consider opting for Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD). Instead of offering compassionate support to alleviate my suffering, it is suggested to me that I should end my life.”
Scotland cannot follow this path - the risk is too great, regardless of any good intent on the part of Liam McArthur.
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).
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.
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
Join the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and the Care Not Killing Alliance for a Zoom event on Thursday March 20 at 3pm ET (Toronto Time) (note changed to 3 pm).
Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Dr Gordon Macdonald, CEO for the Care Not Killing Alliance will provide an update on the assisted suicide bills and debate in Britain, Scotland and Ireland.
Dr Gordon Macdonald
Dr Gordon Macdonald will provide an overview of the current debate concerning the Leadbeater bill that proposes to legalize assisted suicide in England and Wales, the McArthur bill that proposes to legalize assisted suicide in Scotland and the debate in Ireland.
Macdonald and Schadenberg will also discuss the assisted suicide bills in the Isle of Man and Jersey.
Dr Macdonald has led the Care Not Killing Alliance for many years. He works with groups and individuals from multiple points of view.
We will make time for questions and answers at the end.
Alex Schadenberg Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Liam McArthur received 35,949 pounds ($45,800 US dollars) from euthanasia lobby groups and the US pharmaceutical industry to hire a staff member to lobby for his assisted suicide bill.
The MSP behind Scotland’s assisted dying bill accepted thousands of pounds from a euthanasia lobby group with links to a tax haven and the US pharmaceutical industry.
Lib Dem Liam McArthur’s register of interests reveal he received £35,949 - with Dignity in Dying providing £11,983 of the total - to fund a member of staff to work on his campaign.
He was also among a group of MSPs who accepted travel, accommodation and meals worth £2,694 each from Dignity in Dying to travel to California to meet advocates of the state’s End of Life Options Act.
Ferguson also reported about other concerning donations:
Dignity in Dying’s sister charity Compassion in Dying received £300,000 from Church Street Trustees - a secretive firm registered in St Helier on Jersey which was named in the notorious Panama Papers data leak.
US Securities Exchange Commission filings show the offshore company is linked to a number of senior business figures and American big pharma interests including NovoCure and Channel Islands firm Volati.
McArthur told Ferguson that he has registered the funding and the source of the money is an issue for Dying in Dignity.
Twenty years ago, just out of medical school, I couldn’t have imagined that vulnerable patients might one day feel their suffering was so poorly dealt with that they'd ask their doctor to end their lives. Since our country, Canada, legalised Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in 2016, we have seen over 60,000 MAiD deaths by 2023, with exponential yearly growth rates. Quebec’s recent report reveals that their MAiD annual death rate has surpassed 7%, and they can’t even assess the quality of palliative care provided.
The Canada I grew up in valued dignity and protected the vulnerable. Now, inadequate care and weak safeguards are pushing Canadians with disabilities toward assisted death. A recent report from an Ontario government committee I sit on confirms the warnings of Canadian and United Nations human rights experts: people are choosing death because they lack essential supports and services.
Take the report’s review of a man in his 40s with inflammatory bowel disease. Isolated, unemployed, and struggling with mental illness and addiction, he depended on family for housing and financial support.
Rather than receiving care for his mental health, a psychiatrist asked if he knew about MAiD. In the end, a MAiD provider personally drove him to the location where he ended his life — without input from his family, despite their deep concerns. Canada claims to have a social and health safety net, but in his case, was he not pushed toward death?
There are countless other stories like his — stories revealed in reports, the media, and those that I now frequently encounter first hand. Every time I hear them, I’m reminded that what was meant to be an exceptional option has come at an unacceptable cost.
I see patients who are trapped in a system that doesn’t care enough for them. For many, MAiD is the only “compassionate” option when palliative care, mental health support, and basic social services are inaccessible.
These stories are heart-wrenching, and they are far from rare. The report reviews the case of a woman with multiple chemical sensitivities who applied for MAiD because she couldn’t find housing that met her medical needs. She didn’t want to die — she wanted to live in a way that felt safe and supported. But when faced with few options, death seemed to be the only choice.
I care for many elderly and disabled patients, those battling loneliness, isolation, and the quiet anguish of feeling like a burden due to societal neglect. In Canada, MAiD is routinely raised to the elderly and disabled as a care option — sometimes even before palliative care is explored.
I recall a conversation with a man who felt he was no longer needed, that his family would be better off financially if he chose MAiD. I’ve also seen families pressuring elderly relatives, concerned about the financial burden of supporting them. It breaks my heart that, in Canada today, death can seem easier to arrange than creating a safe supportive community where everyone feels valued and connected.
As I prepare to testify in Scotland, I think of the patients I’ve seen swept along by a system that no longer protects them.
In 2016, MAiD was meant for those at the end of life, with reassurances that it would never be offered as a "solution" for social suffering. But those promises have crumbled, replaced by an increasing push for accessibility.
Today, in Ontario, most patients choosing MAiD who are not dying come from marginalised, poor backgrounds. They are younger, with a higher percentage being women (61%). These groups are more vulnerable, often suffering from social deprivation that could be treated with the right support, yet MAiD is offered as a quicker option than suicide prevention and care.
Worryingly, MAiD recipients often lack adequate mental health and disability supports. In Ontario, only 8.6% of those not dying who chose MAiD were offered housing support, and only 6% were offered income support. Those not dying but accessing MAiD are less likely to list an immediate family member as their next of kin — often naming a friend, lawyer, or healthcare provider instead, signalling a stark lack of social support.
The situation continues to worsen. When life’s difficulties become unbearable, MAiD is now presented as an answer, rather than addressing the root causes of despair. How have we, as a society, reached a point where death can sometimes be offered more easily and as a less costly solution than investing in social and mental health services, things that make life worthwhile?
Individual autonomy has been used as an argument to blow open access to MAiD. Mental illness as a sole medical condition to access MAiD will be allowed in 2027, and federal consultations about MAiD advance directives are currently underway.
Quebec has taken matters further, breaking the criminal code by allowing advance directives for MAiD, simply requesting non-prosecution for offenders. Our federal joint parliamentary committee on MAiD has recommended MAiD for children deemed capable of making their own healthcare decisions.
Look at Canada today and ask if this is the reality you want for your own people. Our experiences show that the road to legalising assisted dying is a slippery one. It starts with promises of compassion that have led to a system where some patients feel pushed toward death. This is the opposite of autonomy and choice – it is desperation and structural coercion to die. I would not wish this reality upon any nation.
If Scotland truly wants to offer compassion, it should strengthen palliative care and provide social support that help people live with dignity. Compassion is not offering death to those who feel like burdens or are lonely (which are highly cited reasons for choosing MAiD in Canada) — it’s lifting that burden by creating a society where people feel valued, and every person feels supported and safe.
Previous articles by Dr Ramona Coelho.
Canadians with disabilities are needlessly dying by euthanasia (Link).
Canada's assisted dying regime should not be expanded to include children (Link).
Euthanasia for those with mental illness should not be on the table (Link).
Dr Ramona Coelho is a family physician whose practice largely serves marginalised persons in London, Ontario. She is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and co-editor of the upcoming book Unravelling MAID in Canada: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide as Medical Care. She presented evidence to Holyrood on Liam McArthur MSP's Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill.
Alex Schadenberg Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Professor Allan House
Assisted suicide bills will be debated in Scotland and the UK this year. An article by Professor Allan House was published in The Herald on October 14. House examines Scotland's assisted suicide bill and concludes that the:
Bill falls far short of containing the sort of safeguards we would expect in any other area of care for people with serious physical illness or those who are suicidal. In my view, it is a danger to vulnerable people and should not be allowed to pass into law.
House provides excellent insight. He states:
Throughout my career, I’ve worked to help people struggling with the impact of serious illness who may feel overwhelmed, unsupported, or suicidal. My profession has had a united approach on this. We seek to alleviate suffering while protecting the vulnerable and suicidal.
In the debate about assisted suicide a common concern, even among those who support the idea in theory, is whether a particular piece of legislation can have sufficient safeguards to protect vulnerable people. I’ve studied McArthur's proposals closely and concluded that the safeguards outlined fail to offer any real reassurance to those worried about the risks.
House brings up a good example of how assisted suicide legislation fails. He writes:
To understand why, it helps to consider a case study. Picture a
45-year-old woman who’s lived with multiple sclerosis for ten years. She
has had two relapses since her diagnosis but lives independently and
uses a wheelchair for trips outside her house. Going to see her doctor
one day, she says she feels like ending her life. How should the doctor
respond?
Under our current approach, a doctor would seek to understand more. He or she would discuss the reasons for their patient’s thinking, her personal circumstances, and consider her history of physical or mental health problems. They would want to involve others such as a partner or next of kin. They may then advise a referral to a psychiatrist – especially if the doctor did not have expertise in responding to suicidal thoughts. Work towards a more hopeful outlook and rewarding life would follow.
House explains the problem with doctors assisting suicides. He writes:
There is an unresolvable dilemma at the core physician-assisted suicide legalisation: it requires doctors to prescribe fatal medication and oversee the resulting deaths while they are not responsible for the recipient’s healthcare more generally – with no apparent requirement to follow best medical practice, exercise a duty of care, and work to prevent suicide.
Professor Allan House is an emeritus professor of liaison psychiatry and a supporter of Better Way.
