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.
59 Opinions
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
It will be a slippery slope. From Aiding people who are dieing, or in pain. To anybody who has depression and feels that they cannot live. Look at Canada people who are homeless and disabled have been offered maid. We already know we cannot trust this government, so I would trust them with my life.
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.
Proper funding for dignity in dying - people should not suffer at the end, and they don't have to if, as a nation, we properly fund palliative care. The biggest danger with legislation of this kind, once passed (hopefully never) , it will be amended far beyond what it was originally designed for.
The devil is in the detail of addressing concerns, but it is disgraceful that our two houses of parliament failed to meet this challenge. Terminally ill people deserve dignity and freedom to choose how and when they die.
Will be watching this one closely. I think the country is split almost right down the middle on this one. Personally, I would vote NO but would be easily convinced to vote YES. It depends on very close circumstances.
With strict medical sign offs for those with under six months to live, dignity over agony is basic human decency.
“Tell a Surgeon he can amputate your leg and he’ll spend all night sharpening his hacksaw.”
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.
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.