Assisted dying is one of the most sensitive and ethically complex issues of our time. The idea that someone with a terminal illness, facing unbearable suffering, might choose the time and manner of their death resonates with many of us. We are, after all, a compassionate society. But compassion cannot come at the expense of caution – and certainly not by way of a private member’s bill quietly progressing through Parliament.
Except this one isn’t quiet anymore.
This week, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch publicly urged her MPs to vote against the bill, calling it a “breach of precedent” on what is supposed to be a free vote of conscience. While she acknowledged sympathy for those in extreme pain, she warned that this particular legislation is flawed, rushed, and lacks proper scrutiny. Her intervention makes it clear: this is not just a moral issue — it is a constitutional and parliamentary one too.
Private members’ bills are useful for raising awareness, but they are not the right mechanism to reshape the law on life and death. They lack the rigorous time, consultation, and cross-party scrutiny that such an issue demands. We need a full government-led inquiry, not a backdoor legislative shortcut on a matter of such irreversible consequence.
Several major organisations agree.
The Association for Palliative Medicine, which represents doctors working with the dying every day, is firmly against legalising assisted dying. They argue that the focus should be on expanding access to palliative care, which remains patchy and underfunded.
Disability Rights UK has repeatedly raised fears that legalising assisted dying could put pressure on the elderly, disabled, and those with mental health issues to choose death — not because they want to, but because they fear being a burden. In a society where disabled people still face inequality and marginalisation, this fear is far from hypothetical.
The British Medical Association and Royal College of Physicians, though officially neutral, remain divided, while the Royal College of GPs continues to oppose the move outright. Their concern is simple: no safeguard can fully protect against coercion, misjudged prognoses, or the emotional vulnerability that often comes with terminal illness.
And here’s the point no one seems to be making loudly enough: in practice, end-of-life suffering is already eased every day in hospices and hospitals across the UK.
When someone is dying — truly dying — they are often given a syringe driver, delivering morphine and sedatives to manage pain and distress. The medical goal is comfort, not death. But the reality is that when someone is at the very end, a small increase in dose can gently ease them out of life. It’s legal. It’s compassionate. And it’s already happening — under the careful eye of professionals, with family present, and without the need to legislate intentional death.
What’s missing in Britain isn’t the right to die. It’s the right to die well, with good care, in dignity, and without fear. That’s where energy should be going: into making palliative care available to everyone who needs it, not into rushing through a controversial bill with flimsy safeguards and limited time for debate.
There is a difference between letting someone die naturally, and actively helping them to end their life. That line matters. And we must be very sure, as a society, where we draw it.
This bill does not offer that certainty. What it offers is haste, ambiguity, and political theatre. Kemi Badenoch’s warning should not be dismissed as cynical – it reflects real procedural concerns about how such a law is being introduced. The method matters as much as the message.
I do not deny that suffering exists. I do not doubt that people want autonomy. But I do believe the right answer is a thoughtful, inclusive national process — not a private member’s bill pushed forward in limited time with unlimited consequences.
Let’s have this conversation — but let’s do it properly.
