The Debate: Should we look to legalise assisted dying?

As the second reading of a new bill proposing legalisation of assisted dying approaches, our contestants lay out the arguments around this sensitive and complex moral choice.

Yes: A new law would facilitate a kinder way to die

For the vast majority of the public – three-quarters of us across Britain – the introduction of Kim Leadbeater MP’s Bill offering choice to the terminally ill at the end of their lives is good news. It will end the anguish caused by the status quo.  

Far too many of us have seen loved ones suffer despite the very best palliative care. Some who can afford it travel all the way to Switzerland to die. My father was one of the estimated 650 terminally ill British people who take their own lives every year; my family one of those shattered as a result. This Bill represents hope for a better, safer, kinder approach to dying. 

Other parliaments in these isles are already well along this track, including Scotland, Jersey and the Isle of Man, with the latter’s upper house just this week progressing its assisted dying bill to the next stage.  

I was part of the first ever House of Commons inquiry into assisted dying which examined how these laws work in practice around the world. We found no evidence of any negative impact on palliative care; in fact in many places it improved after legalisation. We also learned that laws that start for terminally ill people have nowhere extended beyond that definition. 

Momentum is on this Bill’s side in a way it simply wasn’t when the issue was last considered 10 years ago. Today’s MPs recognise the need for change and can address all the issues raised by law change through detailed consideration in parliament over the months ahead. 

Paul Blomfield is former MP for Sheffield Central and chair of Dignity in Dying

No: We should be focusing our efforts on improving palliative care

Next month MPs will vote on legalising assisted suicide, but the lessons from the countries that have gone down this route show changing the law is dangerous. 

In Oregon the model most often advanced by pro-death advocates, a majority of those ending their lives cite fear of being a burden on their families, finances or carers as a reason. And those ingesting the death row drugs, far from having a quick and painless death, slowly drown in their own secretions and die of what doctors call a pulmonary oedema – in some cases this can take days.  

There are other problems too. In the Netherlands and Belgium limits on who qualifies for an assisted death have been swept away. No longer is state aided killing limited to those with less than six months to live, but routinely includes disabled people, those with non-terminal conditions, even mental health problems, such as patients with treatable depression and eating disorders.

In Canada in 2022, around 1,700 of those who’s lived were ended by euthanasia cited loneliness as a reason. At the same we have seen cases of disabled military veterans even a paralympian being offered “an assisted death” rather than the care and support they need to live independent lives. While according to an official report from the Ontario, the poor are more likely to apply for euthanasia, this chilling report followed the story of a man being made homeless who had applied to be killed rather than living on the streets.    

At a time when we have seen how broken our health care system is, how one in four Brits who would benefit from palliative care, I would suggest this should be the focus of attention, rather than this dangerous and ideological policy.    

Alistair Thompson is spokesperson for Care Not Killing

The Verdict: Debate is crucial

Assisted dying is a fraught topic which has resurfaced recently due to a bill, proposed by Kim Leadbeater MP, on which MPs will have a chance to debate in its second reading on 29 November – their first chance to do so in a decade.

The British public is largely in support of some form of assisted dying – all constituencies bar one see majority support for legislation. But the devil will be in the detail. Should it be limited to the terminally ill, those who have six months to live? What checks and balances should be required to prevent, God forbid, foul play?

Thompson is right that palliative care needs funding and improvement, as better help would presumably give people reason to keep living. But Blomfield asserts that end-of-life treatment often improves when assisted dying is permitted. If legislation is passed, it should go hand in hand with improved palliative care.

What is certain is that a vigorous public debate is needed – so it is right that Keir Starmer has ordered a free vote for MPs, even though he personally supports some form of legislation.