What this vote revealed is not a generational culture war but something messier: support for assisted dying in principle colliding, unevenly, with distrust of this particular bill. The 55-64 group dug in hardest against it, while 25-34s backed it by two to one and the over-65s, in the smallest but still notable break from the middle-aged wall of opposition, tilted narrowly Yes themselves — suggesting the resistance here was less about proximity to death than about a specific cohort's scepticism of the legislation's safeguards.
Gender told a smaller but consonant story, with the handful of women who voted breaking against the bill more heavily than men, echoing the disability and women's-rights groups' warnings that this framing has repeatedly relied on. The result sits squarely on the fault line that has run through this debate since Kim Leadbeater's original bill: a public broadly sympathetic to the principle of assisted dying, but repeatedly unpersuaded that this specific piece of legislation, and its safeguards, are fit for purpose.
That tension showed in the chamber's own arguments. The floor's top Yes case put it bluntly that "our country is happy to outsource assisted dying to other countries for those who can afford it," calling the status quo "a disgrace and a stain on our national character." The most-respected No voice countered that "all the clinical colleges, women's groups, elderly charities & disability advocates say this bill lacks safeguards for vulnerable people," warning that "many hospices would close if they are forced" to provide it.
A chamber that mostly wants the principle, and mostly doesn't trust the paperwork.
5 Opinions
All the clinical colleges, women's groups, elderly charities & disability advocates say this bill lacks safeguards for vulnerable people. Even if you agree with the principle this is a poorly written bill that was not in any manifesto. Many hospices would close if they are forced, as this bill mandates to provide assisted suicide. How comfortable would we be for another for profit deliver this. as the bill also suggests. We need better palliative care first
All we need to do is look at Canada, its almost everyday now people are offered government assisted death as a way out of many problems, many of them not being illness.
Our country is happy to outsource assisted dying to other countries for those who can afford it. This is a disgrace and a stain on our national character. I am 100% in favour of this bill and will vote for any party that puts this in their manifesto in the future. The proposed safeguards are enough and the slippery slope arguments put forward by opponents ignore the difficulty in getting this very limited law onto the statute books. No chance of going further.
No clinical or disability body supports this bill. In fact they all say it lacks safeguards for the vulnerable. Better palliative care is needed first, only then a bill with robust safeguards might be worth considering.
As long as there is live there is a hope. There are medical wonders, errors in the diagnosis. Then there are greed, laziness and other human factors that would try to take an advantage on this law.