Assisted Dying FAQs

Assisted dying is when a person is given medical assistance to end their life.

It is currently in the headlines because there is a Bill going through Parliament which – if it becomes law – will legalise assisted dying in the UK.

The Bill is called the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. From here on, we will call it the Assisted Dying Bill or AD Bill to keep things simple.

Our elected MPs will vote on the Assisted Dying Bill for the first time on Friday 29 November.

Liberty is a membership organisation. At our AGM in 2008, members voted in favour of a motion which supports legalisation of assisted dying in the UK with maximum safeguards around consent and coercion. This is Liberty policy.

Assisted dying is a deeply complex issue that touches the lives of every single one of us. It’s about how we live, how we die and how we care for our loved ones.

There is no right and wrong here. Whether you support assisted dying, have some concerns or are outright opposed to it, all sides of the debate stem from compassion and wanting to protect basic human dignity. And it is Liberty’s job to scrutinise any proposals to make sure they work safely for everyone.

Liberty defends the human rights of everyone in the UK. In line with our policy backed by Liberty members at our 2008 AGM, we can only support legalising assisted dying if it works safely for everyone. This Bill doesn’t, and Liberty is asking MPs to have this in their minds when they vote.

The Assisted Dying Bill has been drafted with the best intentions, but there are serious concerns over how it places disabled people, people of colour and other marginalised communities at risk.

An issue of the complexity and magnitude of assisted dying, that touches all of us, also requires in-depth scrutiny, expert analysis and public consultation. The process this Bill is following through Parliament doesn’t allow for any of this.

And there are also far too many details left out of the Bill, which will be decided later by the Health Secretary after the Bill becomes law. Good laws do not follow a ‘details later’ approach. For an issue as serious as assisted dying, MPs must know exactly what they are voting on.

Every single part of this Bill has to be the ‘gold standard’ – silver is simply not good enough. Liberty is calling on MPs to keep this in mind when they vote.

A lot of polling suggests that the public supports assisted dying in principle. However, detailed polling shows that despite this support in principle, people have serious concerns about how it can work in practice and protect everyone from risk of harm.

Here is some detailed research on public attitude towards assisted dying from King’s College London.

This debate cannot be a simple question of what percentage of the public supports assisted dying in theory. It must be a question of how exactly it will work safely for everyone in practice.

The current Assisted Dying Bill does not adequately answer this question, and MPs should be clear that they are voting on this particular Bill and not on the principle of assisted dying.

The Assisted Dying Bill is going through Parliament as a ‘Private Member’s Bill’, which follows a different procedure to regular ‘Government Bills’ when becoming law.

Very little debate

Private Member’s Bills (PMBs for short) are typically used for fairly simple issues, at least in recent years. This is because there is significantly less time set aside to examine them.

In the case of the Assisted Dying Bill, when MPs vote on it for the first time on Friday 29 November, there will be a maximum of just five hours of debate. It takes some MPs longer to just get to Westminster. If even half of MPs spoke in the debate, they would get a very maximum of 90 seconds each.

Legalising assisted dying requires a major shift in society from the State being concerned with prolonging life to also helping to end it. The miniscule amount of time allocated to debate law of this scale is wholly inappropriate.

No expert evidence

Typically, when a law proposed by the Government goes through Parliament, a committee of MPs will invite experts into Parliament to give evidence (this is called ‘Committee Stage’). But these checks and balances don’t exist in the Private Members’ Bill process.

So with the Assisted Dying Bill, Committee Stage will only involve MPs. They won’t hear expert evidence from medical professionals. They won’t hear from legal experts. They won’t hear from disabled people. And they won’t hear from practitioners with experience of legalised assisted dying programmes abroad.

Consultation is vital to enable MPs to make the most informed decision they can on behalf of their constituents. But the committee on the Assisted Dying Bill won’t be able to consult with anyone.

The PMB process doesn’t allow for proper debate, scrutiny and consultation. And without them, this Bill can’t possibly guarantee everyone’s safety.

Unfortunately, the issues with the Bill can’t just be solved by offering more time.

The Prime Minister has said that the Government will give the Bill more time – but hasn’t said how much more.

In any event, Private Member’s Bills are only considered on 13 allocated Fridays, and the Bill’s journey through both Houses of Parliament would have to be finished by Friday 11 July 2025, which is the final allocated Friday – so there would still be a time limit.

And more time doesn’t solve the fact that MPs still won’t be receive any written evidence or be able to question experts as the PMB committee stage doesn’t allow for this.

There is no doubting the good intentions of those who have drafted and support the Assisted Dying Bill. But good intentions do not always make good law.

The Assisted Dying Bill lacks essential details and instead delegates powers to the Health Secretary to make rules and regulations themselves after the Bill becomes law.

For instance, the code or practice that will set out how assisted dying would actually work – a document essential for anyone considering an assisted death, for doctors, for judges and, crucially, for MPs who are set to vote on it – hasn’t been written yet. It doesn’t exist and won’t until after assisted dying has already been legalised.

These rules and regulations then become law using ‘secondary legislation’ which doesn’t go through all the regular stages of law-making and receives even less scrutiny from Parliamentarians than Private Member’s Bills do.

Good laws do not follow a ‘details later’ approach. Nor do they give such sweeping powers to one person. This raises huge rule of law concerns as it will inevitably lead to the law being applied inconsistently or policy changing without democratic oversight.

We only need to look at the muddled mess of ever-changing COVID rules to see the dangers of rushing laws through with minimal scrutiny – rules that not only left everyone baffled as to what was or wasn’t legal, but also left whole communities of people behind and at risk.

For many of us, a code of practice is what will show how assisted dying will work in reality. As this is a delegated power, this is likely not to come until after the Bill’s passage, and will be subject to little parliamentary scrutiny.

For the law to protect everyone, it needs to be fixed and certain – but this Bill is anything but.

Determining how long someone has left to live is very difficult. And even if this Bill is the safest in the world, we don’t believe it’s safe enough.

Terminal illness

This Bill currently says an assisted death will only be available for terminally ill people who have six months or fewer left to live. However, determining an accurate prognosis is a complex and imprecise process. Recent research demonstrates the challenges in identifying people who will die within weeks or months, compared to days or years.

The original eligibility criteria for an assisted death have widened in every jurisdiction in which it has been legalised – whether by law makers, the judiciary or changes in medical interpretations.

In Oregon in the United States, understandings of ‘terminal illness’ have evolved over time to now include some treatable conditions where the patient has refused treatment. This is a real risk here in the UK too, as the Assisted Dying Bill does not differentiate between treatable or untreatable terminal conditions.

Similarly, Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying programme has expanded significantly since it came into being. Originally intended to apply to people who are terminally ill, it now includes people with chronic, non-terminal conditions in some cases – including anorexia, which is generally considered treatable. And since 2021, it has been open to people with mental health conditions.

And as we have mentioned, powers given to the Health Secretary to decide how assisted dying would work in practice means anyone holding that role could make it easier or more difficult to access an assisted death in future.

Coercion

One of the main risks of assisted dying is people being pressured into ending their lives.

The Assisted Dying Bill requires the agreement of two doctors and High Court Judge in an attempt to make sure they have capacity to make the choice and there isn’t any coercion.

Evidence from psychologists and lawyers suggest that both capacity and coercion are very complex areas where opinions may differ between experts.

And what is far trickier still is ‘indirect/internalised coercion’ – a person feeling forced into an assisted death by their particular circumstances. This could be feeling like a burden on relatives; it could be being faced with the choice of leaving an inheritance for loved ones or paying for a care home; or it could be brought on by poor access to palliative (end of life) care that might ease pain and suffering as social care and the NHS are in crisis.

This is extremely difficult to account for. Parliamentarians need to consider that there may be a small number of people every year who experience indirect or internalised coercion and whose request for assisted dying is approved. They will need to weigh up if this risk is outweighed by the benefits of offering assisted dying to other individuals.

An issue of this magnitude, and for which there are no easy answers, needs time and reflection, not a sprint through Parliament.

The lack of details in this Bill heightens the chances of assisted dying eligibility expanding over time and presents unique risks to marginalised communities, including disabled people, communities of colour experiencing systemic racism and people with already limited access to healthcare.

The UK has a troubling history of not respecting disabled people’s rights, which has been internationally recognised by the UN. Disabled people experience discrimination and insufficient access to care and support on a daily basis, often having to fight for basic support needed to live with dignity.

And the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how disabled people’s lives are often deprioritised within public health and social policies. Local councils were able to cut care, and Government directives regarding “Do Not Resuscitate” (DNR) orders were disproportionately applied to disabled people.

Communities of colour in the UK also often face barriers to quality palliative care, adding a troubling dimension to this Bill.

Introducing assisted dying in a healthcare environment where communities of colour already face systemic discrimination could increase the risk of vulnerable people feeling pressured to consider assisted dying due to inadequate available care.

This has been the case for some people in Canada, who have opted for an assisted death due to inadequate access to services needed to live a dignified life.

Anyone choosing an assisted death because the state isn’t meeting their fundamental human rights is unacceptable.

Like other Bills going through Parliament, MPs and members of the House of Lords will be able to suggest amendments to the Assisted Dying Bill.

But this is hypothetical and there is no guarantee that Parliamentarians will offer amendments, or that they will adequately address concerns.

On an issue as consequential as the State assisting people to die, we need details now, not potentially in the future. We can only look at the Bill in front of us – and that Bill presents serious concerns. We can’t rely on potential amendments which may or may not be added in.

We did support Diane Pretty, and still do believe the law needs to be looked at.

Diane’s case was about the risk of prosecution, and guidance for that does exist now.

But as a human rights organisation, we have to ensure that whichever law is brought in works for everybody, and above all works safely.

Those are really important considerations, and that’s why Liberty is supportive of assisted dying in principle. But the human rights argument here is not simple. We have to also consider who this Bill might harm. And we have to question whether people are getting a real choice between dignity in living and dignity in dying.

At the moment, so many people do not have access to the care they need. Especially in palliative care, for example, we know communities of colour have far less access to these services, and therefore may be inadvertently impacted by this proposed law.

We need to ensure that the choice is a fair one for everyone, and at the moment that’s just not the case.