Public opinion on assisted dying legislation is highly polarized. Many support the right to a dignified death for terminally ill individuals, sharing personal experiences of suffering. However, significant concerns about potential abuses, ethical implications, and the risk of coercion for vulnerable populations dominate discussions, highlighting a fear of diminishing respect for life.

UK Government

Healthcare Professionals

Advocacy Groups for Assisted Dying

Snapshot of _The loophole in the assisted dying bill that no one wants to talk about_ :

An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&amp;url=https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2025/06/the-loophole-in-the-assisted-dying-bill-that-no-one-wants-to-talk-about)  or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&amp;url=https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2025/06/the-loophole-in-the-assisted-dying-bill-that-no-one-wants-to-talk-about)         


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

As an extra piece of information - this is one of the reasons why the Royal College of Psychiatrists can't support the bill:

[Physical effects of a mental disorder shouldn’t make a person eligible for assisted dying/assisted suicide: If the Bill proceeds in England and Wales, it must exclude the physical effects of mental disorder, such as anorexia or dementia, as the basis for eligibility for AD/AS. ](https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/news-and-features/latest-news/detail/2025/05/13/the-rcpsych-cannot-support-the-terminally-ill-adults-(end-of-life)-bill-for-england-and-wales-in-its-current-form#:~:text=Physical%20effects%20of%20a%20mental%20disorder%20shouldn%E2%80%99t%20make%20a%20person%20eligible%20for%20assisted%20dying/assisted%20suicide%3A%20If%20the%20Bill%20proceeds%20in%20England%20and%20Wales%2C%20it%20must%20exclude%20the%20physical%20effects%20of%20mental%20disorder%2C%20such%20as%20anorexia%20or%20dementia%2C%20as%20the%20basis%20for%20eligibility%20for%20AD/AS.%C2%A0)

The Royal College of Physicians has also stated its [agreement with the above concerns](https://www.rcp.ac.uk/policy-and-campaigns/policy-documents/rcp-position-statement-on-the-terminally-ill-adults-end-of-life-bill-9th-may-2025/#:~:text=We%20share%20the%20concerns%20expressed%20by%20the%20Royal%20College%20of%20Psychiatrists%20on%20the%20limitations%20of%20the%20current%20Mental%20Capacity%20Act%20and%20its%20use%20in%20this%20situation.%C2%A0).

  
Hopefully this gives more information of the issues surrounding the article from professional bodies to aid in any debate on the subject.

NotOnlyMyEyeIsLazy

This is quite an emotionally written article that I think misses the mark on discussing an otherwise important point. It seems to me the author thinks that someone with Anorexia or who is VSED can be simply cured by "just eating food lmao", but it doesn't discuss at all to what extent. Do we simply section these people and strap them down to force feed them via NG tube? For how long? Indefinitely? Is this considered a cure in the authors eyes? I note the author, Chelsea Roff, is an an Anorexia survivor herself and founder of Eat Breathe Thrive - a non-profit aimed at helping people recover from EDs - so I assume her stance is that people with EDs need better treatment and there needs to be better "buy in" about EDs in the medical world, and therefore people with EDs should not qualify for assisted dying because in her eyes it would never be a terminal diagnosis if a patient got better treatment. But what if that's not true? What if these horrible diseases do actually have an incurable upper threshold and that some people simply cannot recover? "I survived through great effort and treatment and therefore everyone should be able to survive, so no one should be able to make a choice about ending their life on their own terms because some people get better" is a pretty interesting and biased take IMO.

The ultimate point is pretty interesting, which is if we *did* strap them down and force them to eat in a controlled way, then they would survive or at the very least they would be alive, which means by definition their "temporary" condition of starving to death is not "terminal"... so does this disqualify them from getting a medically assisted death? How does this change if the patient is measured repeatedly to have mental capacity to make unwise decisions such as VSED? It's very complicated and I think this article does a pretty shit job of exploring it, IMO, which is surprising given the specialist interest of the author. Maybe I'm missing something.

TheBlunderBus

[deleted]

"In Oregon, a woman with early-stage dementia recently starved herself into eligibility"

And therein is the entire argument for allowing people the dignity to not put themselves and their loved ones through the hell (and expense) of dementia - the person themselves was willing to starve rather than suffer. Give them the choice, not the profiteering Care industry (who are the the only winners when forcing people to stay alive).

This article is so cherry-picked in terms of emotional manipulation, right down to the "if it was your daughter" payoff line. The opposite of this of course being "if your daughter wanted to end her life, had attempted multiple times, and was willing to starve herself to the point of excruciating pain and suffering and organ failure, would you want her to stay alive to suffer hell on earth, just to satisfy yourself?"

blankedbobby

These concerns are exaggerated. There's already a legal framework with physicians dealing with people with mental disorders, and if necessary, judicial intervention if they don't have the mental capacity to make a decision.

LetsgoRoger

My mother lived till she was 98, and would very happily have gone much sooner. At the end she was completely senile, unable to recognise family, or remember anything at all. She couldn't feed herself, was profoundly deaf and nearly blind, and was in constant pain from the arthritis she'd endured for more then four decades. She was also a widow for her final 17 years. She did not crave companionship, or appreciate support. She was extremely suspicious of care workers and often rude and aggressive with them. I'm sure she'd have been distraught if she had been aware of her situation and loss of personal dignity.

Jenkes_of_Wolverton

I'm in favour. My aunt died last year and seeing how much she suffered, mental, physically and with losing her dignity was heartbreaking. Her case was terminal, no possibility of a cure and she knew it. She wanted to die, sometimes she'd ask my mum to help her. Instead she had years of suffering.

Due-Sea446

Thing is its fairly simple. Just say no I don't want to die.


Decisions are made for financial purposes rather then health everyday. Ultimately we can't prevent that as a country. 


How many people have you heard of that keep their grandparents out of care homes they need to save some inheritance? 


You can't prevent someone else doing something because you yourself would feel pressure. It's a silly way to make laws.


Eventually some form of assisted dying bill will pass, if you've ever been in pain so bad you wished to die you'd understand it. Many people simply don't want to go on and that's okay. We shouldn't prevent people making a decision because of some people's apparent pressure.

objectablevagina

Let's wait until the possibly's and maybes actually become realities before torpedoing something that many thousands would take comfort from?

IlovemyBudgie

isn't the prognosis error rate 40% or something equivalent. Read an article recently that someone given 6 months actually lived 3 years

Consistent_Cat3038

[https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/05/doctors-consider-practicalities-of-assisted-dying-england-wales-prognosis](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/05/doctors-consider-practicalities-of-assisted-dying-england-wales-prognosis)

As they say, no is a complete sentence. You have the choice not to perform assisted dying.   

I feel like a balance of safeguards is better than a prohibition on the basis of a people feeling like they can’t say no even though they are adults and have that right.

UnsaddledZigadenus

It should not be passed. Theyll say there will be safeguards and limits and strict criteria but theyll be expanded and relaxed. They were in every place assisted suicide has been allowed. Then you get canada where you ask for a wheelchair ramp and they ask if youd thought about killing yourself instead (this happened). Because suicide is cheaper for a socialized healthcare system than caring for people.

Funny-March-4720

Video is interesting, bit one sided [https://youtu.be/0FDOkKlzV-s?si=6g4uw\_vhtWzqWZND](https://youtu.be/0FDOkKlzV-s?si=6g4uw_vhtWzqWZND)

Snapshot of _Assisted dying bill due for final Commons debate ahead of crucial vote_ :

An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&amp;url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cg4ry0pge4kt)  or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&amp;url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cg4ry0pge4kt)         


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I’ll be pleased if this Bill passes to the next stage (HoL), but I have a feeling it will fall. The hysteria has reached fever pitch and I think many of the MP who originally supported it will have been scared off.

Alasdair91

Conflicted.

I'm in pretty much in support of euthanasia, but I think there's too many external pressures in our society right now, like how if you're put into a care home you're basically forfeiting giving your kids an inheritance unless you pop your clogs early.

I want it to be entirely about the quality of life, but I don't think British society is set up that way currently.

TheAdamena

Have to hope it passes. It's the humane thing to do and widely supported by the population.

BananaSauasage

I hope it passes - It feels like one of those issues where we'll always be able to come up with a "But what if" scenario against it.

But at the end of the day, people going through immeasurable suffering just have no choice - we treat dogs better than this. No-ones forcing anyone to go through with this, just saying give people the choice.

DeadliestToast

[LabUK is also on Discord, come say hello!](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4)


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I used to favour it and I still do in principle, however I’d say I’m personally undecided on whether I’d like to see this bill passed. I’d say that what’s changed my view is reading into the implementation of assisted dying in Canada, and how many people are turning to assisted dying in the absence of quality care and poverty.

Overall, I’m on the fence (which is rare for me) as I know that if I was to find myself in certain health situation, where my quality of life was significantly impacted, I would want to opt for assisted dying if it was legal. And so on the other hand it does seem unfair to deny it to other people.

I am absolutely nowhere on this debate which is weird for me since I'm usually a strident and thoughtless idiot

The_Inertia_Kid

I haven't changed my mind per se but I'm like... less in favour than I was before. 

Mostly just from hearing proponents of the bill talking about it bringing down social care costs, in particular but also trying to beat down opponents by basically saying their opinion doesn't matter. 

It's not fair to put this on the actual legislation but one concerning thing to me is how many people I've spoken to who honestly believe *anyone* should be able to get assisted suicide. Like, not just terminally ill people but anyone suicidal. That's very alarming, given we have a crisis of mental health and also a crisis in healthcare the future of this bill looks grim to me. 

That said I also don't think we should oppose the Bill on these reasons alone - what we need is more people to be willing to oppose these things as they come down the line. The "slippery slope" as they call it doesn't have to be so slippery - we don't need to decide between "this 100% will lead to people in MH crises being killed by hospitals" vs "No one ever will abuse this and extrapolate beyond reasonable measure".

Sophie_Blitz_123

Morally, I've not changed my mind, I've always supported assisted dying.

But the arguments about how our underfunded health service will struggle to implement this properly seems to be quite strong. There are also problems with funding in the judiciary, which is a problem for that aspect of the bill as well.

I'd much have preferred this to have been done after a firm commitment to actually fixing the NHS with a detailed long term plan and proper funding. The government's plan for the NHS so far has not been impressive and most of it has been incredibly vague. 

They could have prevented a lot of people's fear on this issue by doing that first, so that people know this will be another feature added to a functional healthcare system, rather than one that is blatantly dysfunctional.

Sorry-Transition-780

I was in favour of assisted dying as a principle, but as the debate progressed I became more aware of the utterly dystopian stories around implementation in Canada, Oregon and elsewhere. I reccomend Yuan Yi Zhu's twitter feed for anyone who hasn't come across such stories (it's not a fun read, but will make you think twice).

I've also come to the belief that we need to properly fund palliative care for 100% of citizens before we can consider assisted dying.

Michaelw76

I was reasonably anti at the start but over time I've realised the 'horror stories' from Canada and the Netherlands were highly misleading fear mongering and there isn't much reason to believe there's a slippery slope effect. I'm still uncomfortable with it but it think the bill should be passed.

sargig_yoghurt

I was historically in favour of assisted dying. But I don't trust the safeguards or the palliative care systems in this country to implement it at the moment

RoastKrill

I've gone back and forth on whether I'd support this in the current form.

The sticking point I come back to is economic coercion. We're all aware of how much care costs. Someone could be coerced without ever having a conversation about cost.

People have mentioned that we euthanise dogs who are suffering but I know several cases where they are euthanised because the cost of surgery/care to treat the illness was too high.

How do you remove the impact of economic coercion from a person's decision making?

NewtUK

I’m listening to both sides and ignoring those who oppose it for archaic religious reasons.

I wouldn’t say I’ve changed my mind but since hearing more of the debate, I’m more inclined to now say that we shouldn’t allow it. Society treats those who are terminally ill as a burden, and even with the safeguards (2 doctors and a judge) it’s still open to coercion.

_jammy73

I began very narrowly against the bill, based on the unbelievable awfulness of 'families' that my wife regularly witnessed working in care, alongsude DNR abuse, again personally witnessed by my wife as well as reported nationally - the NHS and the British state are not capable of preventing subtle coercion - you'll never convince me otherwise. 

However, I think the other side just marginally won the argument.The case being made that terminal illness is unbridgeably distant from the vaguery of 'intolerable suffering' and that other countries which have chosen not to open the latter floodgate have not seen the mission creep of countries that have is a convincing one. As I say, I'm absolutely certain that sighs and eyebrows will be employed as murder weapons in the years to come and that this will never be captured in data - but it's such a balancing act that I think the above refutation of the slippery slope position was easily enough to tip it.

I'm still not convinced - but I do think that this distinctly non-activist law is a lot better than the law it could have been, given that one law passing eventually was probably inevitable. So I haven't changed my mind as such, but I'm basically onboard with the outcome of the vote and content with it as a new status quo.

Simonindelicate

A lot of people in here giving the "oh but the safeguards" excuse as a reason to be against it but they never engage with the people are *currently* suffering and will be left to literally rot to death. Where's the fucking safeguards in that?

We're leftists, we're supposed to know that the status quo is not morally neutral.

Vasquerade

No, it's sad to see people get browbeaten by some slippery slope fallacy, or the also horribly fallacious "need to invest in better palliative care" which stinks of Cameron's "he needs body armour, not a new voting system" argument.


I've always been pro-choice and this is no different at all. The bill is extremely limited and there are those with dementia/Alzheimer's and other diseases who won't be covered in this bill so I do hope indeed it's a slippery slope in that case as those families now have to make choices whether to illegally mercifully help their loved ones die.


I also don't think it's hypocritical to hope for that slippery slope and say slippery slope is fallacious because even in that case it is something that has to be argued and passed in law. Everything is a slippery slope and if we were worried about that we would not progress at all in anything.

Ardashasaur

The decision for this should come from palliative specialists, not MP's. Them giving their opinions on it like this is relevant. This is about what's best for a terminally ill patient, not them. 

What Diane Abbot or Wes Streeting think about it isn't relevant, 
they're not the ones dealing with it day to day and they're not the ones with a terminal illness.

DigitialWitness

I wouldn't say I was pro but sort of in between (slightly against) a few months ago, but I've hardened against it more and more as it's gone on.

In principle I think anyone with a terminal illness with 12 months left should be able to die when they choose and that a person with a degenerative disease should also be allowed. I think that those who are given the option should have to convince a panel of doctors and a judge (though not the high court). That, as far as I can tell, goes beyond what the current bill proposes.

However I am against the bill on the grounds that it will be used as a stepping stone to expand far beyond what is proposed, and once that door is open there are effectively no limits on what else can be done. I have heard pro people talking about depression, physical disabilities and even autism. I have even heard a lot of arguments that it should be open to anyone at any time without restriction because they are pro bodily autonomy. I am confident that once the taboo is broken it will only ever move in one direction. The second reason is simple, that this would disproportionately affect the poor, vulnerable and minority groups. Those people already have less good outcomes in care, medical and mental health situations. It's obvious that it would affect them a lot more but pro people don't seem interested in addressing those concerns.

Nobody can tell me it won't happen because there are already people in parliament who have tried to push this bill to go further. They keep saying it's fearmongering and people are making things up while at the same time saying it's a step in the right direction, clearly indicating they want more (there are people in this thread doing exactly that). It feels like gaslighting, probably because it *is* gaslighting. There will be complaints about the safeguards being too restrictive and campaigns for the type of person allowed to be expanded. It's inevitable, there is too much ambition from the pro side of things for it to stop here. It won't be quick, it will take years, but they will push and push until they get it. 

I'm also not a fan of the way pro people have conducted themselves online. There has been a lot of very immature and insulting behaviour bordering on abuse to anyone on the other side and I think certian people need to step back and reflect on themselves. Whole debate has left me very sour on the issue.

Ok-Discount3131

For it! Also health professional. Our NHS and community services can no longer guarantee a pain free ending for patients… service is too stretched, death can be traumatic for the family and distressing for the patient, that is not the way it should be. Allow people to pass with dignity and guaranteed comfort.

Alert-Net-7522

I haven't changed my mind necessarily, but I'm much more conflicted about it than I previously was.

TL;DR, legalising will lead more people to commit suicide, and that will objectively be the wrong decision for the vast majority of them, but outlawing it will make people who would kill themselves anyway suffer more.

I used to be firmly in favor of The Bill, as I felt that we already allowed people to kill themselves, preventing a safe, legal, relatively painless root really just made already miserable people's lives more miserable. We allow people to refuse, say, necessary medical treatment or food even if they know it's going to kill them, and we'd be horrified if doctors forcibly tried to treat someone against their will. 

However, reading more about the topic, and having a suicidal episode myself challenged my understanding and assumptions about suicidal people. [70-80%](https://means-matter.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/survival/) of people who are saved form a suicide never made a further attempt, and &gt;10% actually end up taking their own life. I previously thought suicidality was a chronic, persistent state of mind, like severe depression, and it can feel that way in the moment, but in the overwhelming majority of cases it is actually an acute period of intense crisis that, once passed, is unlikely to fully return.

Related to this is the [Coal Gas Effect](https://means-matter.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/saves-lives/#:~:text=Coal%20Gas%20in%20the%20United,was%20introduced%20into%20the%20UK.), which basically shows that putting up even minor barriers or inconveniences between suicidal people and killing themselves can have a dramatic reduction in the overall number who actually attempt. If you make suicide more difficult, people don't just choose another way to kill themselves, instead, they don't try to kill themselves at all. 

(Incidentally this is another reason why firearms ownership is a really bad idea. Owning a firearm [*dramatically*](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1916744) increases the chances someone tries to take their own life, because it offers a quick, easy, and painless way to kill oneself).

These two facts combined - most people who are saved from suicide regret trying, and making suicide more difficult reduced the overall number who try - now make me uncertain about the bill and similar efforts to allow assisted suicide elsewhere. 

On the one hand, I don't want people to suffer unnecessarily, especially if they suffer already, but on the other hand we have strong evidence to suggest that this is the wrong choice for the vast majority of people who'll take it, and making it easier will lead more people to make that incorrect choice that otherwise would.

I don't know how to weigh the suffering and loss of those two groups, and which system of law will see the least harm.

Corvid187

I still think there should be, the mechanism to do this.

My reservations come from starmers Mein Keif 'contribution society' piece he did for the Fabians and this feeds into his whittling down of 'non contributors'.

Otherwise_Craft9003

is this a soft launch for "I've changed my mind because of the corbyn statement", OP?

I was against and im even more against it now knowing children will be treated as adults ( https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldselect/ldasdy/86/5020347.htm ) when they can't even fucking self determine their genders

Silly-Inflation1466

Initially I was pro-assisted dying, but as I’ve seen more stories come out about pressure and heard those who desire it failing to get proper support - I’ve come out against it.

I think it should still be illegal, however I’m confident in our Jury system that those who help people to die will be protected legally.

Thetwitchingvoid

Its only for people who're expected to die within 6 months. A step in the right direction I guess

cocainesuperstar6969

penguinsocool_

We have Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada. No government wanted to be the face of it, but our Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional to deny the right to die.

PantsLio

Key_Tie411

Regardless of how you feel about life, I think we can all agree that people should not be forced to live if they really don't want to, right? 

Though we should still debate the nuances and context for euthanasia, because I doubt we wanna see kids and vulnerable people granted this procedure without proper safeguard and aid. 

Just like the abortion debate, extremes on both sides should not dictate what people actually want.

PitifulEar3303

Prasad2122k

Even if you never end up using it, it's good to know the option is there

Ill_Dragonfly2422

There are so many people crying over this because they say it's discriminating against disabled people or something (?). It only allows those who are terminally ill to access this service and they have to go through so many checks and legal bs that they might die naturally before it gets approved.

Every_Database7064

FullConfection3260

we need euthanasia as we suffer from overpopulation

LelouchviBrittaniax

Hi there,

It looks like you submitted a video link. Please provide a brief description (about 100 words or more) of the video and its relevance to antinatalism so that users and moderators can get a brief overview which will aid in engagement and mod duties.

Thanks!

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*

hooray... but as some have said its very limited. but then again, everything starts with one step forward. hopefully more steps follow

HammunSy

Every socialized medical system is going broke and this is what they hope can be part of their solution. 

Getting people who need expensive medical treatment opting to just choose not to bother with it.

Greaser_Dude

This move is incredibly suspicious from a government that has been gutting their healthcare system for a decade. We should look at what Canada has done with their program. 

It's not a "step in the right direction", they are just finding an excuse to stop spending healthcare dollars on disabled people. Then, they offer the people they aren't serving the option to die.

Walpurga_Enjoyer

rashnull

I'm anti-anti-natalist, but I'm pro Brits dying so I'm all for it

Bingus28

h2vhacker

JFC stop the BS all of you are just acting like children. No, don't let people just die. 

The U.K. House of Commons has approved the Assisted Dying bill, allowing terminally ill adults in England and Wales to choose to end their lives under specific conditions.

Assisted Dying Legislation in the UK

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want