One of the most divisive moral and political issues of our time has reached another flashpoint.

While headlines about Friday’s (May 16) debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill may focus on new “safeguards” and the promise that nobody will be forced to participate in end another person’s life, what is missing from the mainstream narrative is just as important as what’s included.

MPs ran out of time before they could vote on all the proposed amendments, so they will return to the bill on June 13, when the issue could move to its next legislative stage.

The government continues to adopt a “neutral” stance, and MPs have a free vote, meaning they’re not obliged to follow a party line.

On paper, this is democracy in action.

But beneath that surface lies a legislative proposal with profound and dangerous implications, where moral complexity is being papered over with bureaucratic efficiency and “safeguards” that may prove hollow under pressure.

Here’s what was changed, what was missed, and why this matters more than many dare to admit.

We’re there already! Thanks to amazing supporters, we’ve reached this month’s £50 goal to fund independent research and reporting.
How much further can we go? The more we receive, the more we can do.
If you value fearless political journalism that holds the powerful to account, please chip in today. Even £2 helps keep Vox Political running strong.
👉 Support us here: https://ko-fi.com/voxpolitical

What MPs changed on Friday

Not all amendments were debated, but several were—and some passed. But even these so-called improvements deserve a closer look.

1. Expanded conscience protections

Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP sponsoring the bill, successfully amended the bill to extend protections beyond doctors to include social care workers, pharmacists, and any other staff involved in the process. None will be required to participate if they are unwilling to do so.

2. Ban on clinicians initiating the conversation

Another significant change: medical professionals will be banned from suggesting assisted dying to a patient first. This was a key concern for opponents who feared terminally ill people could be subtly coerced or steered toward death.

3. Support for amendment over refusing food and drink

MP Naz Shah proposed a change ensuring patients couldn’t qualify for assisted dying just because they voluntarily stop eating or drinking. Leadbeater said she supports the idea, though technical tweaks may be needed.

Despite these changes, more than a dozen amendments did not receive a vote—including key concerns over eligibility definitions and the strength of remaining safeguards. That debate will resume next month.

What the Bill aims to do – and how it’s changed

At its core, the bill aims to legalise assisted dying for mentally competent adults in England and Wales with a terminal illness and a prognosis of six months or less to live.

In November, the bill passed its first Commons vote by 330 to 275. But since then:

• The requirement for a High Court judge to approve each assisted death has been scrapped, replaced by a panel including a lawyer, psychiatrist, and social worker.

• The language around safeguarding has been reworked, but critics argue the substance is weaker than before.

• Debate is increasingly shaped by emotionally charged campaigns, like that of broadcaster Dame Esther Rantzen, which blur the lines between personal tragedy and public policy.

Get my free guide: “10 Political Lies You Were Sold This Decade” — just subscribe to our email list here:
👉 https://voxpoliticalonline.com

The safeguards – real protection or false reassurance?

Supporters of the bill point to what they call robust safeguards:

• Mandatory assessments by two independent doctors.

• A formal decision by an expert panel.

• The patient must have mental capacity and make the request voluntarily.

• There must be a cooling-off period before the prescription is given.

But scratch the surface, and these protections look far less sturdy.

• The removal of judicial oversight—quietly dropped after committee stage—means there is no longer any independent, external authority reviewing each case.

• The question of mental capacity is fraught with uncertainty, especially in patients experiencing depression, trauma, or despair.

• Relying on busy clinicians to detect subtle coercion from families, carers, or institutions is deeply naïve.

• If safeguards are truly “the strictest in the world,” why do so many disability rights organisations oppose the bill?

Who’s covered – and who might be at risk

Supporters insist the law will apply only to those with a clear medical prognosis. But in reality, the lines are far blurrier.

• What counts as “terminal” varies wildly. Is advanced heart failure terminal? What about progressive multiple sclerosis? Or ALS, which can have wildly different trajectories?

• MPs raised concerns about anorexia nervosa patients potentially being deemed terminal if they decline to eat or drink. Leadbeater called the risk “negligible”—but that’s not the same as non-existent.

• If patients can’t be offered assisted dying just because they refuse food, why is that amendment still needed?

What’s really at stake is the message the law sends. If death becomes a state-sanctioned solution for those with progressive illness, does it reinforce the idea that some lives are no longer worth living?

The unspoken pressures: dignity or despair?

One of the most serious criticisms—raised by Labour MPs Anneliese Dodds and Dame Meg Hillier—is the idea that vulnerable people may choose death because they feel like a burden.

This isn’t theoretical. Studies from Canada and the Netherlands show growing numbers of people request assisted death due to isolation, fear of dependence, or social pressure, not unbearable physical pain.

This is particularly dangerous in a society where:

• Disabled people face daily discrimination.

• Social care is underfunded and fragmented.

• Many families can’t access proper palliative services.

Instead of fixing those systems, the bill may inadvertently offer death as a cheaper alternative.

International cautionary tales

Supporters argue England and Wales can “learn from others.” But that doesn’t mean we should repeat their mistakes.

• Canada’s MAiD system, which began as a restricted programme for terminal illness, now permits assisted death for non-terminal conditions, including mental illness alone.

• In Belgium and the Netherlands, the criteria have expanded to include children, people with autism, and chronic psychiatric conditions.

• In every country where assisted dying has been introduced, eligibility has expanded over time, often in the face of initial assurances to the contrary.

This is called “safeguard slippage”, and it’s not just a theoretical risk—it’s a documented trajectory.

The bigger picture: a choice framed by austerity

This debate cannot be separated from years of underfunding in NHS end-of-life care.

MPs like Rebecca Paul are right to ask: Why isn’t the priority improving palliative care?

How can consent be considered fully informed when:

• One in three people don’t have access to specialist end-of-life services?

• Patients are often discharged into under-resourced community care settings?

• Disabled and elderly people face months-long delays for social care assessments?

In this context, offering assisted dying without first guaranteeing universal access to dignified care is not progress. It’s a moral failure disguised as compassion.

What happens next – and what you can do

MPs will return to debate further amendments on June 13. A final vote could happen that day or be pushed to a future session. Several MPs have said they’re reconsidering their support in light of recent changes—but it won’t take many more to swing the vote.

Now is the time to:

• Write to your MP, whether you support or oppose the bill.

• Demand transparency about the bill’s long-term implications.

• Ask hard questions about how society cares for its most vulnerable.

We’re there already! Thanks to amazing supporters, we’ve reached this month’s £50 goal to fund independent research and reporting.
How much further can we go? The more we receive, the more we can do.
If you value fearless political journalism that holds the powerful to account, please chip in today. Even £2 helps keep Vox Political running strong.
👉 Support us here: https://ko-fi.com/voxpolitical

Crossing the moral Rubicon*

Supporters say this bill is about freedom, dignity, and compassion. Opponents warn it opens a door that cannot be closed.

That’s why we must ask: is this legislation an act of mercy or the first step toward normalising state-sanctioned death?

We are not just tinkering with medical policy— redefining what kind of society we want to be. And if we cross this line, there may be no turning back.

*The phrase “crossing the Rubicon” refers to the moment Roman general Julius Caesar defied the Senate by crossing the Rubicon River with his army in 49 BC—an act that triggered civil war and led to the end of the Roman Republic. It has since come to symbolise passing a point of no return.

---

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (bottom right of the home page). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

5) Follow Vox Political writer Mike Sivier on BlueSky

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Cruel Britannia is available
in either print or eBook format here:

The Livingstone Presumption is available
in either print or eBook format here:

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here: