The room did not give assisted dying a blank cheque: it backed the principle while treating the bill itself as negotiable, a telling distinction in a vote where the floor’s most-respected Yes case called the measure “not fit for purpose”. This was a conditional verdict, not an unqualified vote of confidence in the legislation on offer.
The Yes side’s strongest moral argument was stark: “dignity over agony is basic human decency”. Its practical answer to objections was equally concise — “So make them stronger” — with supporters repeatedly presenting safeguards as a drafting challenge rather than a reason to deny the choice altogether.
The No case was less a rejection of compassion than a warning about what legislation might become. One of its most-respected voices said the country was “split almost right down the middle on this one”, while another feared the law would be “amended far beyond what it was originally designed for”; the two sides were often answering different questions, one about present suffering and the other about future power.
That puts the debate inside the wider argument about individual rights, palliative care and trust in institutions. A weary No voice distilled its objection to authority itself: “No government or doctor or person should have that power over you”, while Yes voters returned to the view that safeguards should protect vulnerable people without removing choice from those facing terminal illness.
The verdict is conditional rather than celebratory. Permission, if it comes, will have to arrive with safeguards sturdy enough to reassure even those who voted for the principle.
47 Opinions
“Tell a Surgeon he can amputate your leg and he’ll spend all night sharpening his hacksaw.”
Yes. But the assisted dying bill put to parliament was not fit for purpose and was rightly rejected. I would support a better drafted piece of legislation
Anyone who has stood by the bedside of a dying loved one and watched a painful departure, wishes passing could be made easier. So assisted dying makes sense. However, controls also need to be put in place to safeguard people and protect them.
But with greater controls in the last bill.
As long as you the individual have the choice and nobody else and it is to shorten your death (not take a life where you don’t have a terminal diagnosis) I am all for you having that option
We have already had the medical profession quietly killing people off with the Liverpool pathway. The survivors of that tell of the excruciating pain of being denied water. We have seen where this leads in Canada with teenagers being euthanised for depression. The last thing we need is legislation that would eventually be used to cull the old and infirm.
Doctors caused this problem by refusing to prescribe enough painkillers post-Shipman in case they were accused of manslaughter, and refusing to euthanise in case the family sued and because some doctors don't like the idea of doing it. Assisted dying is conversion therapy for suicide, just to make things easier for doctors. Just make doctors do what they used to do - prescribe pain relief, if necessary to the end.
Labour deceitfully used Private Members Bill route to force a genocide bill through with few if any safeguards. Leadbetter in my opinion is an evil person, a liar & immoral. She promised everything then resiled on all points one after another. Faulkner’s threatening & shockingly arrogant & sinister behaviour in Lords demonstrated the desperation that Labour wanted a ‘killing’ bill on the statute book, already have right to murder full term babies. Satanistic is the only word.
yes but with extreme caveates that are ensures that once it is safe after deep debate and research it is then not able to be legislated by any future government beyond what it weas intended for. We can be kind, we can be empathetic, and we should try better to ensure comfort. But governments have proved time and time again to not legislate properly, and this particular case its essential.
Yes, but only for those who are terminally ill.