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

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

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

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

So what's new?

Honestly? Not much.

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

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

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

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

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

What we're doing about it.

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

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

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

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

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

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning California, on August 18, 2015 we wrote:

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

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

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

 

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

 

Kill the bill, not the patients. 

What should happen to the UK assisted suicide bill?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alex Schadenberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Starmer / Burnham

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

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

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

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

Britain needs to focus on improving care and rejecting killing.

We oppose killing people and support caring for people.

The UK will debate the Leadbeater assisted suicide bill again.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

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

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

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

The BBC news story by Harry Farley stated:

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

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

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

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

Dr Gordon MacDonald

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

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

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

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

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

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

More articles on this topic:

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

Canada's parliament needs to fully review the euthanasia law.

This speech was delivered to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying on May 5, 2026. I was only given 5 minutes to speak.

Petition: Canada's euthanasia law needs a complete review (Link).

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.

Defeat of ‘dangerous’ UK assisted suicide bill is just a pause in our fight, say disabled opponents

This article was published by Disability News Service on April 30, 2026.

By John Pring

Disabled campaigners have warned that pressure to push through legislation to allow assisted suicide is sure to continue, even though the “dangerous” and deeply-flawed terminally ill adults (end of life) bill has run out of parliamentary time.

Those supporting the bill in the House of Lords repeatedly lashed out at disabled campaigners and allies who they blamed for blocking the bill, when it was debated for the final time in the House of Lords on Friday.

Because the current parliamentary session ended yesterday (Wednesday), the bill can now not become law, although it is highly likely to be brought back before parliament in the next session, which begins next month.

Disabled peers and others who suggested multiple amendments aimed at fixing the legislation’s many flaws have faced months of attacks in the Lords and the media accusing them of trying to block the legislation by “filibustering”.

Those attacks continued in a bad-tempered final debate on Friday, with the bill’s sponsor in the Lords, Labour’s Lord Falconer, and pro-legalisation colleagues, repeatedly attacking a “small minority” of peers who they accused of blocking the bill.

Lord Falconer said he was “despondent” that the bill had failed due to “procedural wrangling”, and said the Lords had “let down” terminally-ill people, while he later described the day’s debate as “horrible” and suggested opponents were responsible for that.

The disabled crossbench peer Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson, one of the peers who has been targeted by Lord Falconer for her attempts to address flaws in the bill, told fellow peers that many of the amendments she had put forward had been suggested by disability organisations, including disabled people’s organisations, and “disabled individuals who are very worried about the reality of the bill”.

She said: “This bill has failed because there are too many gaps in it.”

And she said the fact that Lord Falconer had himself tabled 76 amendments “shows that there is not the confidence that this bill is safe”.

She said: “We have heard much debate today about the damage to [the House of Lords], but I have had thousands of emails to thank us for what we are doing here to unpack the danger that is in the bill.

“I am very clear on my role. It has not been pleasant to sit here and be targeted by so many people who say that we are doing a bad job, but our job is to protect everyone in British society, and this bill does not do that.”

Baroness [Jane] Campbell, another disabled crossbench peer who has been accused of blocking the legislation, said the number of peers who had taken part in debates on the bill “reflects deep and genuine concerns shared by NHS doctors, human rights bodies and disability organisations about the risks this legislation may pose to the most vulnerable”.

She said: “I have long supported autonomy for disabled people, but autonomy without protection is not freedom – it is risk.

“When the outcome is irreversible, that risk must be treated with the utmost seriousness.”

She said that organisations with concerns about the bill’s safety included the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, disability organisations, and the human rights organisation Liberty.

Baroness Campbell added: “Disabled people who have contacted me are very clear: this bill frightens them, and they want me to explain to your lordships why it is dangerous for them.

“They fear unequal access to care shaping their choices, subtle coercion that cannot be easily detected, error in prognosis, persistent assumptions about the value of their lives and a system already under strain being asked to deliver decisions of the utmost gravity.”

And she said it was clear that more work was needed before the bill could be considered safe.

She said: “If the bill is to proceed, it must clearly demonstrate that it can protect those in highly vulnerable situations while respecting the wishes of those it is intended to serve.

“At present, it does not meet that test.”

Not Dead Yet UK, the campaigning organisation that fights attempts to legalise assisted suicide, and which was founded by Baroness Campbell, welcomed the “pause” in the continuing push for legalisation, but warned that the bill would return to parliament.

Phil Friend, convenor of Not Dead Yet UK, said he and fellow campaigners were grateful to the peers who had scrutinised the bill so thoroughly and “found some very serious problems”.

He said: “Many of them were publicly labelled as enemies of democracy – denounced in rallies, criticised in open letters, their constitutional role dismissed as deliberate obstruction.

“Baroness Jane Campbell, Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, Baroness Ilora Finlay and others did their jobs.

“They took disabled people’s concerns seriously. They deserve our thanks, not our condemnation.

“And we, as disabled people, find it abhorrent that individuals were personally attacked simply for listening to us.”

Friend said the pressure to change the law “will not stop”.

He said: “We knew this was always going to be a long campaign. That hasn’t changed.

“We go into the next battle with stronger networks, a developing strategy, and a growing community of disabled people and allies who understand what is at stake.”

Picture: Members of NDY UK and parliamentary allies in March last year, including Baroness Grey-Thompson (front row, second from right)

International change projected from Alberta Bill 18

Gordon Friesen

By Gordon Friesen
President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I think it is fair to say that the world-wide euthanasia/assisted-suicide/medical-homicide debate has recently entered a new phase.

For as long as I can remember, a relentless click-clack, click-clack, click-clack, political ratchet sound had signalled "progress" in one direction alone: more legal jurisdictions; wider eligibility; increasingly limited access to real care.

Article: Alberta Bill 18 will provide limits to euthanasia (MAiD) (Read).

Our victories were counted in the defeat of euthanasia and assisted suicide bills. And, even while celebrating, we knew that the same people would be back, next year, in the same states or countries, with the same bills (or perhaps something even worse).

In the last few years, huge chunks of cultural geography seemed poised to totter all at once, notably including the entire British diaspora of UK, Wales, Scotland, the Chanel Islands, Australia, New Zealand, and of course, Canada. France too, had lately joined the contest, along with the rest of Southern Europe. And in the US the "progressive" bastions of Illinois, and New York, finally managed to eke out a long awaited pro-death majority.

But now, it would seem that the winds may indeed be changing. For although its former satellites --Australia, Canada, and more-- have indeed forged ahead in radical fashion, The UK itself including all its main constituents (England, Scotland) has not. And while France has been teetering for years, against all lucid prediction: it teeters still.

And then something amazing occurred. Slovenian legislators legalized euthanasia in July 2025, according to the same "the fix is in" international playbook that we see advanced elsewhere. But the Slovenian people suddenly rose up and reversed that decision with a binding referendum, in November of the same year!

Apparently, this tiny victory, in a nation of only 2 million souls, is destined to be recorded in history as that first infinitesimal crack in an apparently indestructible wall, which clearly foretells (for those who can read the signs) a future collapse of the entire structure. For in this instance, a euthanasia legalizing initiative was not merely postponed, but frankly rolled back.

To be clear on this point: unlike any number of American States, Slovenians will not face a new euthanasia initiative next year. And this, in exactly the same way that an overturned US Supreme Court decision never results in new legislation, to the same effect, for at least a generation.

Quite frankly, I think most people assumed (or at least feared) that this victory would be a one-off, and that the death-cult steam-roller would continue unabated as before.

But now we have Alberta, one of ten Canadian Provinces which suddenly says:

"No, Canada may render an extended practice of legal euthanasia, but the Province of Alberta will limit such practice within the bounds of public healthcare."

Once again, as in Slovenia, what is already legal (and in the Canadian context what had been actual practice going back five years) will be halted. Not a prevention. A roll-back!

In a little while it will be appropriate to say something more specific about the meaning of Alberta Bill 18 for Canada, and especially, for other Canadian Provinces. But for today, I would simply like to make two international remarks.

First: it can be done!

Defeating a Bill in your jurisdiction is not necessarily a temporary victory. It is possible that you have stopped this madness permanently. And furthermore --just as in Slovenia and Alberta-- even losing is not the end of rational hope. Evil policy can actually be reversed. We have the proof!

My second remark, however, is more sobering: The popping of champagne corks, that we hear in Canada today, is to celebrate rolling back the demented policy of that nation in only one of ten Provinces; and even there, only to the original state of euthanasia law in 2016, which was then the most radical in the world.

The number one lesson of Alberta, in the US and around the world, is therefore this:

If you do not wish to find yourself in a similar situation to that described, it is imperative to invest yourself, now, in the struggle to prevent any legalization, whatsoever, in whatever jurisdiction you cherish as your home.

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

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

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

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

failing to pass assisted dying legislation would undermine trust in politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defeating the UK assisted suicide bills. Victory is close.

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

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

Dr Gordon Macdonald

Dr Gordon Macdonald

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

FIRST: England & Wales (Westminster)

Victory is now a real possibility.

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

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

They are coming under huge pressure from our opponents.

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

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

As one senior Labour MP put it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list goes on.

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

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

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

We must guard against complacency

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

1. Our opponents are threatening to use the Parliament Acts

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

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

2. Disgruntled opponents could push legislation through in other ways

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

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

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

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

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

The coming weeks and months will be crucial.

Winning the media war is vital.

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

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

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

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

SECOND: Scotland (McArthur) Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

The final vote is expected to be very close.

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

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

THIRD: Isle of Man

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

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

But this may NOT happen.

Major development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We cannot neatly separate assisted suicide from suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

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

By Adam James Pollock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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