An Unnecessary and Unwelcome Distraction

Naz Shah writes:

The assisted dying bill may be reintroduced and, if peers again resist it, supporters are threatening to force it into law by invoking the Parliament Act. This would enact the most consequential life-and-death law in a generation without proper scrutiny.

This bill is deeply personal to me. Forced into marriage at 15, I am a survivor of domestic abuse. I am also a former Samaritan who has survived two suicide attempts. I sat on the public bill committee trying to make this law work and I came out convinced that it was fundamentally flawed.

My fear is simple: that abused, disabled and vulnerable women — already made to feel like a burden by those who control them — will be coerced into early deaths while the safeguards I fought for are quietly stripped away. This is, at its core, a gendered bill, one that will cost women’s lives.

During the committee stage, I argued that eating disorders, which have some of the highest mortality rates of any psychiatric disorder and disproportionately affect young women, should never qualify someone for assisted dying.

Amendments solved only part of the problem. An eating disorder such as bulimia may not stop a person eating and drinking, but it can still make them seriously ill by damaging their organs and putting serious strain on their heart.

Supporters say that adults of sound mind deserve autonomy over their own deaths. I don’t dismiss that argument. But autonomy isn’t exercised in a vacuum.

It’s exercised in a society where disabled people are constantly made to feel like burdens on the state, where women in abusive relationships are isolated and gaslit for years, where our social care system is falling apart.

The bill’s wording suggests doctors can raise assisted dying with patients. Palliative care professionals have warned me that a vulnerable patient won’t hear that as a neutral option — they’ll hear it as a suggestion from someone powerful, someone they’re afraid to contradict. Are we really going to be the parliament that dismisses the experts who deal with dying patients every single day?

And this is not the moment. Our country faces challenges that demand parliament’s full attention: rebuilding our national security and growing an economy so the next generation isn’t the first to be worse off than the last.

Working people need us delivering on jobs, energy, the NHS, education and artificial intelligence, not reopening the most divisive debate in our politics, devouring time we owe to those who need it most. Not never. Just not now, and not like this.

And Adam James Pollock writes:

On Wednesday, 17 June, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill had its First Reading in the House of Commons – for the second time. The Bill, which was first introduced in 2024 by Kim Leadbeater MP and which ran out of time in the House of Lords at the end of the last Parliamentary session last month, has now been brought back by Lauren Edwards MP, a first-term Labour backbencher.

At a time when the Labour Party is already so profoundly divided, with a Prime Minister who has just announced his resignation and a leadership contest open to nominations, the decision to further fracture the Party by reintroducing such a controversial piece of legislation has been met with mass consternation. Rightly so.

Could Ms Edwards think of no other more pressing local or national matter to devote herself to? Certainly, the residents of her Rochester and Strood constituency — of whom over 500 have signed a petition asking her not to do precisely what she has just done — can feel aggrieved that such an opportunity to bring about positive change which could unite has instead been utilised to return to a subject which so sorely divides, and which has been so thoroughly discredited.

Many Labour MPs have already made their views known regarding the return of the Bill. Fellow Labour MP Adam Jogee criticised the decision to reintroduce the “deeply divisive and flawed Bill”, implying the decision would spark division in the Party, saying, “This Bill will hand sweeping, unchecked powers over life and death and our NHS to future governments… whoever they are”. Another, Antonia Bance MP, said her head was in her hands due to her colleague reintroducing the Bill, “given everything going on in the world and here at home”.

The public want stability, and, above all, to be listened to. We know they are willing to punish MPs who refuse to act in their best interests. Indeed, in the borough where Kim Leadbeater’s Spen Valley constituency is located, the Labour Party lost every single council seat in the local elections last month. Electoral Calculus predicts that she will now lose her seat at the next General Election; Lauren Edwards is also predicted to lose hers.

It is an unsteady time for the Government. Keir Starmer’s ship has sailed, leaving the country in a semi-leaderless limbo. With a leadership contest now on the horizon, assisted suicide threatens to derail and distract from the Government’s priorities and focus – whatever those may be, or may become – as it did in the previous Parliamentary session.

Andy Burnham, following his success in the Makerfield by-election early on Friday morning, is by far the bookies’ favourite to be Starmer’s successor. Last week, the New Statesman revealed that Burnham is not likely to support the return of the Bill. Although supportive of assisted suicide in principle, he said, “in terms of the implementation of it, I would say there should be a kind of requirement that the hospices of this country get properly funded and sorted out before that law change comes in”. He added that due to palliative care not being “in the strong position it should be in”, it would not be feasible to “have this law change with an underfunded hospice movement”.

As the New Statesman posited, Burnham’s first and, arguably in the short-term, most important challenge as Prime Minister would be to unite a disunited Labour Party. A protracted assisted suicide debate will be an unnecessary and unwelcome distraction from this task.

As the Bill is unpopular with his Labour Party colleagues, so it is also unpopular with the public. Whoever emerges as Prime Minister following the upcoming leadership contest – be it Andy Burnham or another candidate — will have an eye on improving Labour’s popularity and vote share ahead of the next General Election in 2029, if one is not called before then. Assisted suicide, and in particular the decision to reintroduce the Bill with the aim of forcing it into law using the Parliament Acts, is profoundly unpopular.

A recent poll — the largest poll of its kind since the introduction of the first Bill in 2024 — found that, in every single constituency in the country, a majority of people oppose any legislation being pushed through without sufficient scrutiny or without the approval of both Houses of Parliament, even if they agree with assisted suicide in principle. The widely respected polling expert, Andrew Hawkins, has said, “The polling shows [that] voters are cautious, uneasy and deeply concerned about safeguards.”

Amidst the introduction of Lauren Edwards’ assisted suicide Bill in the Commons chamber last week, Simon Hoare MP can be overheard saying, “Oh, not again”. He spoke for the whole country.

The Labour Party does not need the controversy and discord created by this Bill. The public does not want this Bill, with all its inherent threats and dangers. Most importantly of all, people who are disabled or otherwise vulnerable, as well as those who provide them with care, do not want this Bill; they are all too aware of the terrible toll it will take. MPs who wish to unite the Labour Party and put their country first should endeavour to make sure this awful Bill fails to receive its Second Reading.