Our message to MPs

As a Member of Parliament, you have a crucial role to play in protecting disabled people’s lives and supporting our ability to live dignified and independent lives.

We are afraid that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill lacks appropriate safeguards and threatens the most vulnerable in our society, our autonomy, and our options.

Why You Must Vote Down the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

This Bill has been rushed through in an undemocratic process, and key safeguards have already been stripped away. You have a responsibility to protect your disabled constituents and those with chronic health conditions by voting down this unsafe Bill.

This Bill does not create a real choice. It creates an expectation.

This Bill is not safe. Scrutiny has only revealed its dangers, not resolved them.

Scrutiny Has Proven Disabled People’s Fears Right

At Second Reading, MPs were promised that a High Court Judge would oversee applications. That safeguard has since been removed in favour of a weaker Review Panel.

Every attempt to strengthen protections has been rejected. MPs at Committee Stage voted down measures to guard against coercion, mental health risks, and flawed life expectancy estimates.

If these protections were rejected during scrutiny, how can anyone trust they will remain in the final Bill? Even when the Bill is passed, it will be open to amendments.

The risk of coercion in assisted suicide is terrifying, and the Bill’s current safeguards are nowhere near strong enough to prevent it.

Scrutiny has weakened this Bill, not improved it. That alone should be a red flag.

7 reasons why you need to be concerned about this Bill

1. Excessive reliance on secondary legislation. Delegating 38 powers to ministers leaves critical details including safeguards, eligibility and drug protocols to future legislation. Regulations can be amended quietly without adequate debate.

2. Inadequate safeguards against coercion. While the Bill requires assessments by doctors and panels, the criteria for detecting coercion or undue influence are vague and rely on regulations. There is no explicit requirement to screen for familial pressure and the independent advocate system is poorly defined.

3. Weak oversight of medical practitioners. The Bill allows doctors to determine eligibility but delegates training standards to regulations. There is no requirement for specialists in palliative care or psychiatry to be involved. Risks include misdiagnosis of terminally ill patients (12-15%) and conflicts of interest for those doctors aligned with assisted suicide may face pressure to approve cases.

4. Lack of transparency in reporting. The “final statement” omits independent verification of the patient’s consent at the time of death. There is no mechanism to audit whether the deaths followed proper procedure, increasing the potential for abuse.

5. Ethical and practical risks of approved substances. The Secretary of State can specify lethal drugs and their handling without clinical consensus. Drugs like secobarbital, which is used in the US, can cause prolonged, painful deaths if improperly administered.

6. Normalisation of assisted suicide. The Bill frames assisted dying as part of "holistic care", risking a slippery slope. Over time, eligibility could expand to non-terminal conditions via regulatory changes. In Canada, MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying) was initially for terminal illness but now includes mental illness and poverty-related cases.

7. A Private Members’ Bill is not subject to the same level of scrutiny, consultation, or amendment as a government Bill. A government Bill approach could have offered a formal consultation, comprehensive policy developments, pre-legislative scrutiny and state endorsement. This Private Member's Bill tries to do both and fails on both accounts.

MPs: Your Vote Could kill people or kill the bill

Ask yourself:

Has this Bill, which could end lives, followed a rigorous, democratic process?
Has it been scrutinised and strengthened to prevent unnecessary deaths?
Will it protect the most marginalised, or put them at risk?
Will assisted suicide be used as a cost saving measure when future budget cuts around social care are needed?

This vote is not just about principle. It is about safety.

This is about protecting disabled and terminally ill people from harm.

Turn up. Vote. Reject this Bill.

Group of protesters holding signs with individual letters that spells out the message "Assist us to live".