Share this post:
One of the most divisive and morally consequential pieces of legislation in recent history may have its safeguards restored after concerns raised by voices like Vox Political sowed doubt in MPs’ minds.
When the Assisted Dying Bill (or more correctly, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill) was first introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, it was sold to MPs and the public alike as a tightly controlled proposal – available only to mentally competent, terminally ill adults with less than six months to live. Supporters spoke at length about its “strict safeguards” and “world-leading protections.”
But as the bill has progressed through Parliament, those supposed safeguards have not been reinforced or future-proofed.
Instead, they’ve been quietly stripped away – hollowed out by amendments and omissions, and weakened by political convenience.
Far from protecting the vulnerable, the bill is beginning to resemble a framework that might place them at greater risk.
And finally – at last! – some MPs are beginning to see that.
Just click on the image, make your donation,
and provide your details!
A turning tide?
As the BBC reports today (June 7), opposition to the bill is growing – not just from MPs who always had doubts, but from some who initially backed it or abstained.
Markus Campbell-Savours, Josh Fenton-Glynn, Karl Turner, George Freeman, and several others have now signalled they will vote against the bill in its current form.
That shift is no coincidence. It comes after months of scrutiny, amendment debates, and campaigning from those of us who have been sounding the alarm.
Campbell-Savours still considers himself “a supporter of assisted dying,” but warns that this bill “crosses red lines for protecting the vulnerable.”
Fenton-Glynn, who previously abstained, now says attempts to improve the bill’s safety have been actively blocked.
This is what campaigners like This Site have been saying all along: you cannot legislate for death while sleepwalking through the safeguards.
Buy Cruel Britannia in print here. Buy the Cruel Britannia ebook here. Or just click on the image!
The illusion of protection
Some of the changes that have passed recently seem reassuring on the surface.
There’s now a ban on clinicians initiating conversations about assisted dying.
Conscience protections have been extended to include not just doctors, but social workers, pharmacists, and other staff.
But these are sticking-plasters over a gaping wound.
What has been taken out is far more concerning:
-
The original requirement for a High Court judge to approve each assisted death? Scrapped.
-
Calls for stronger eligibility definitions and tighter mental health assessments? Blocked or ignored.
-
An amendment to stop those refusing food and drink from qualifying for assisted dying? Still unresolved.
-
The role of personal and social coercion – the feeling of being a burden? Largely brushed aside.
Supporters of the bill claim that it has the “strictest safeguards in the world.”
But if that were true, why have so many MPs changed their minds after reading the fine print?
And why are so many disability rights organisations, doctors, palliative care experts and legal professionals warning that those so-called safeguards wouldn’t withstand real-world pressure?
Get my free guide: “10 Political Lies You Were Sold This Decade” — just subscribe to our email list here:
👉 https://voxpoliticalonline.com
This is the ‘mission drift’ we warned about
In countries like Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands, assisted dying legislation began with strict limits too.
Over time, those limits expanded – to include people with non-terminal conditions, mental illness, even children in some cases.
Each time, supporters claimed that “mission drift” wouldn’t happen. Each time, they were wrong.
Here in the UK, we’re already seeing the same trajectory.
What began as a bill with judicial oversight has become one governed by a three-person panel – with no requirement for external review.
What was meant to be a narrow law is becoming harder to define clearly – with terms like “terminal illness” left dangerously vague.
And what was sold as a compassionate measure is increasingly being defended with bureaucratic language about “efficiency” and “choice.”
This isn’t just bad lawmaking. It’s moral erosion.
A crossroads moment – not too late to act
On Friday – June 13 – MPs will return to the Bill.
Further amendments are due to be debated.
This is the moment to make your voice heard.
If you believe, as I do, that the most vulnerable members of our society deserve robust protections – and that Parliament has a duty to legislate with caution, not haste – now is the time to contact your MP.
Tell them:
-
That removing judicial oversight was a mistake.
-
That eligibility criteria must be crystal clear and strictly limited.
-
That the bill should never create conditions in which people feel pressured to die because they lack care or support.
-
That assisted dying must never become a substitute for proper palliative care.
This isn’t just a medical debate. As I stated before, it’s a moral Rubicon.
If we legalise assisted dying in a form that is already compromised before it becomes law, how much further might it slip once it is on the books?
We’re not just debating over a Parliamentary Bill. We are deciding what kind of society we want to be.
The campaign is working – but the fight isn’t over
Campaigners have helped push this bill into the spotlight.
We’ve forced politicians to reckon with hard questions.
We’ve made it harder for MPs to wave this through without real scrutiny.
That’s a victory in itself – but it’s not enough yet.
If the bill passes with stronger safeguards reintroduced – if judicial oversight returns, if eligibility is clearly defined, if real protections for the vulnerable are finally written in stone – that will be a win for all of us who refused to stay silent.
But if the bill passes as it currently stands, it will be the first step down a path that no society should walk.
Just click on the image, make your donation,
and provide your details!
Help keep this work going
This kind of independent, fearless reporting takes time, effort, and support.
If you value what I do at Vox Political – exposing hidden dangers, asking the questions others won’t, and fighting for justice – please chip in whatever you can.
👉 Support us here – even £2 makes a difference.
Thank you for supporting This Site.
Share this post:
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:
Assisted dying: MPs change sides over slipped safeguards because This Site was right
Share this post:
One of the most divisive and morally consequential pieces of legislation in recent history may have its safeguards restored after concerns raised by voices like Vox Political sowed doubt in MPs’ minds.
When the Assisted Dying Bill (or more correctly, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill) was first introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, it was sold to MPs and the public alike as a tightly controlled proposal – available only to mentally competent, terminally ill adults with less than six months to live. Supporters spoke at length about its “strict safeguards” and “world-leading protections.”
But as the bill has progressed through Parliament, those supposed safeguards have not been reinforced or future-proofed.
Instead, they’ve been quietly stripped away – hollowed out by amendments and omissions, and weakened by political convenience.
Far from protecting the vulnerable, the bill is beginning to resemble a framework that might place them at greater risk.
And finally – at last! – some MPs are beginning to see that.
Just click on the image, make your donation,
and provide your details!
A turning tide?
As the BBC reports today (June 7), opposition to the bill is growing – not just from MPs who always had doubts, but from some who initially backed it or abstained.
Markus Campbell-Savours, Josh Fenton-Glynn, Karl Turner, George Freeman, and several others have now signalled they will vote against the bill in its current form.
That shift is no coincidence. It comes after months of scrutiny, amendment debates, and campaigning from those of us who have been sounding the alarm.
Campbell-Savours still considers himself “a supporter of assisted dying,” but warns that this bill “crosses red lines for protecting the vulnerable.”
Fenton-Glynn, who previously abstained, now says attempts to improve the bill’s safety have been actively blocked.
This is what campaigners like This Site have been saying all along: you cannot legislate for death while sleepwalking through the safeguards.
Buy Cruel Britannia in print here. Buy the Cruel Britannia ebook here. Or just click on the image!
The illusion of protection
Some of the changes that have passed recently seem reassuring on the surface.
There’s now a ban on clinicians initiating conversations about assisted dying.
Conscience protections have been extended to include not just doctors, but social workers, pharmacists, and other staff.
But these are sticking-plasters over a gaping wound.
What has been taken out is far more concerning:
The original requirement for a High Court judge to approve each assisted death? Scrapped.
Calls for stronger eligibility definitions and tighter mental health assessments? Blocked or ignored.
An amendment to stop those refusing food and drink from qualifying for assisted dying? Still unresolved.
The role of personal and social coercion – the feeling of being a burden? Largely brushed aside.
Supporters of the bill claim that it has the “strictest safeguards in the world.”
But if that were true, why have so many MPs changed their minds after reading the fine print?
And why are so many disability rights organisations, doctors, palliative care experts and legal professionals warning that those so-called safeguards wouldn’t withstand real-world pressure?
Get my free guide: “10 Political Lies You Were Sold This Decade” — just subscribe to our email list here:
👉 https://voxpoliticalonline.com
This is the ‘mission drift’ we warned about
In countries like Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands, assisted dying legislation began with strict limits too.
Over time, those limits expanded – to include people with non-terminal conditions, mental illness, even children in some cases.
Each time, supporters claimed that “mission drift” wouldn’t happen. Each time, they were wrong.
Here in the UK, we’re already seeing the same trajectory.
What began as a bill with judicial oversight has become one governed by a three-person panel – with no requirement for external review.
What was meant to be a narrow law is becoming harder to define clearly – with terms like “terminal illness” left dangerously vague.
And what was sold as a compassionate measure is increasingly being defended with bureaucratic language about “efficiency” and “choice.”
This isn’t just bad lawmaking. It’s moral erosion.
A crossroads moment – not too late to act
On Friday – June 13 – MPs will return to the Bill.
Further amendments are due to be debated.
This is the moment to make your voice heard.
If you believe, as I do, that the most vulnerable members of our society deserve robust protections – and that Parliament has a duty to legislate with caution, not haste – now is the time to contact your MP.
Tell them:
That removing judicial oversight was a mistake.
That eligibility criteria must be crystal clear and strictly limited.
That the bill should never create conditions in which people feel pressured to die because they lack care or support.
That assisted dying must never become a substitute for proper palliative care.
This isn’t just a medical debate. As I stated before, it’s a moral Rubicon.
If we legalise assisted dying in a form that is already compromised before it becomes law, how much further might it slip once it is on the books?
We’re not just debating over a Parliamentary Bill. We are deciding what kind of society we want to be.
The campaign is working – but the fight isn’t over
Campaigners have helped push this bill into the spotlight.
We’ve forced politicians to reckon with hard questions.
We’ve made it harder for MPs to wave this through without real scrutiny.
That’s a victory in itself – but it’s not enough yet.
If the bill passes with stronger safeguards reintroduced – if judicial oversight returns, if eligibility is clearly defined, if real protections for the vulnerable are finally written in stone – that will be a win for all of us who refused to stay silent.
But if the bill passes as it currently stands, it will be the first step down a path that no society should walk.
Just click on the image, make your donation,
and provide your details!
Help keep this work going
This kind of independent, fearless reporting takes time, effort, and support.
If you value what I do at Vox Political – exposing hidden dangers, asking the questions others won’t, and fighting for justice – please chip in whatever you can.
👉 Support us here – even £2 makes a difference.
Thank you for supporting This Site.
Share this post:
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:
you might also like
Let’s start the New Year with some hopeful news
Three letters: F-O-X
How much can YOU pay? A&E charges would speed NHS privatisation