Ten worst moments of the UK's assisted suicide bill committee stage.

Courtesy of Dan Hitchens on X

Given how strongly I feel about it, I regret having hardly written about the unseemly push in the UK to pass an “Assisted Dying” bill.

This is the only article about it I have written, due to “bandwidth” issues:

(The above article contains a link to a 2 minute-video of the late Rabbi Sacks, recorded 8 years ago while Canada was discussing introducing its MAID legislation, which in my view everyone should watch.)

I very much doubt I will have much time to write in detail about this matter any time soon either.

However, I did want to share an excellent thread on X by Dan Hitchens with you, which is worth reading (and watching the videos embedded therein) if you want to get a sense of the shenanigans going on at the committee stage of the development of this legislation.

Click here or on the picture below to go to the thread:

Fortunately, it looks as if the bill might be on its last legs:

This letter to the Editor is as good a summary as any of most of the issues:

SIR – As a law student, I have been taught that good legislation must be precise, accountable and robust. Yet the assisted dying Bill, whose future is now uncertain (report, March 27), emerged from committee stage with many of its most important safeguards removed or weakened.

More than 500 amendments were considered, yet only 18 per cent of those accepted came from opponents of the Bill. Judicial oversight, initially central to the process, has been replaced with a panel system, and independent scrutiny handed to a commissioner embedded within the very structure they are meant to monitor.

Crucially, the Bill remains silent on how services will be delivered, regulated or held to account. Instead of comprehensive statutory safeguards, sweeping powers have been granted to ministers through a “Henry VIII clause”, allowing key details to be decided later by secondary legislation. That is not how good law should be made, especially when lives are at stake. There has also been talk of private, for-profit providers playing a role. Whatever one’s view on assisted dying, the entry of commercial interests into such a sensitive area raises serious ethical concerns. The risk is that decisions meant to be rooted in compassion may be shaped by cost or convenience.

Assisted dying is often framed as a matter of choice, but for many this choice would be shaped by fear, pressure or a sense of being a burden. Our response to suffering must put care – not convenience – at the forefront. This is achieved through proper palliative support, and a healthcare system that stands beside people during their final chapter – not because it’s easy, but because it’s right.

Malik Fraz Ahmad
Bradford, West Yorkshire