Concern and disappointment as MP brings ‘deeply flawed’ assisted dying bill back to parliament

Disabled MPs and activists have expressed grave concern at the decision of Labour backbencher Lauren Edwards to reintroduce the “divisive” and “deeply flawed and unsafe” assisted dying bill to parliament.

Edwards came second in last month’s private members’ bill ballot, which means she should have enough parliamentary time to push the bill through the House of Commons, if it secures enough support from MPs.

If it is voted through by MPs, it is believed that Edwards and her supporters would then use the Parliament Act to force it through the House of Lords and become law.

It is likely that the first Commons debate and vote on the bill, at its second reading, will take place in September.

Edwards published a statement announcing her decision just days after disabled activists from Not Dead Yet UK (NDY UK) had hand-delivered a letter to her constituency office, asking her to take forward a bill on palliative care rather than one that would legalise assisted dying.

In her statement, Edwards said she had been given “a rare opportunity to present legislation that can make a real difference”.

She said she had decided to reintroduce the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill, which was taken through the Commons by Labour’s Kim Leadbeater before it ran out of time to complete its progress through the Lords at the end of the last parliamentary session in April.

Yesterday (Wednesday), Edwards reintroduced the bill, which she claimed in her statement was blocked by the Lords and was the “safest and most robust assisted dying law anywhere in the world”.

The bill was only narrowly approved by MPs 12 months ago – with 314 voting in favour and 291 against – and many activists believe that some of those who voted in favour may now vote against the bill because of the multiple flaws in the legislation that were exposed during its passage through parliament.

Among the disabled MPs and activists expressing concern at Edwards’ decision was Labour’s former shadow minister for disabled people, Vicky Foxcroft.

She told Disability News Service (DNS) that the bill had been “divisive” and its progress through the Lords had exposed its “many flaws”.

She believes many MPs only voted for the bill last year because they believed it would be improved when scrutinised by peers, but that failed to happen.

She said: “I just think there’s other things that we should be talking about, such as sorting out the social care system, sorting out palliative care, making that better, before we even re-engage in a debate on this issue.”

Another Labour MP, Ashley Dalton, who is living with metastatic breast cancer, said on X that she was “very sad” to see Edwards bring back the “deeply flawed and unsafe” bill.

She added: “How many coerced deaths, deaths motivated by poverty or a sense of obligation, deaths of people that may have years left but are frightened and need support, how many of these deaths are OK so some other people get what they want?”

And a third disabled MP, Labour’s Emma Lewell, said on X that she was “absolutely dismayed” to see the bill being re-introduced.

She said: “Not a single one of our major medical or professional bodies support it.

“A deeply flawed and dangerous bill that poses a real risk to the most vulnerable in our society.”

Labour veteran Diane Abbott, who has a long-term health condition, said on X: “The assisted suicide Bill is a dangerous mess of a Bill, with fewer safeguards than when it began.

“If the exact same shambles is revived, it will face strong opposition.”

Phil Friend, from NDY UK, said his organisation’s opposition to the bill had not changed “because the situation hasn’t changed”.

He said: “Palliative care remains underfunded. Social care is in crisis. End-of-life care is a postcode lottery.

“Too many disabled and terminally-ill people are not getting the support they need to live with dignity.

“We’ve always said that it’s not safe to consider assisted suicide until those things are fixed.

“Bringing back the same, flawed bill doesn’t answer that challenge – it sidesteps it.”

He added: “Many MPs supported the bill last time because they knew the Lords would refine it.”

But he said that the debates in the Lords showed instead how unsafe the bill was.

He said: “We urge all MPs to instead turn their energy towards fixing things that would genuinely help: a right to independent living, properly funded social care, and an end-of-life care system that gives people real choices.”

Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), which also played a significant role in opposing Leadbeater’s legislation, said it was “very concerned” that Edwards had brought back a “deeply flawed bill” that disabled people’s organisations had warned would “fundamentally impact disabled people’s lives and change how society views us”.

And it said it was “not at all reassured” that the bill would be co-sponsored by disabled Labour MP Marie Tidball, an announcement that it described as “a cynical attempt to gas light DDPOs* and terminally-ill people with concerns about legislation”.

DPAC said: “Terminally-ill people cited by bill proponents and featured in the media who voice support for legalisation only ever comment on the principle of assisted dying and never on the specific concerns with the content of the bill which DDPOs and professional bodies have raised.

“Using their voices to discredit the voices of DDPOs and concerned individual terminally-ill people is another example of the gas-lighting we have endured.”

Sophia Kleanthous, a member of DPAC’s national steering group, told DNS: “When disabled people do not have free social care at the point of need, are unable to access accessible housing, and palliative care is a complete postcode lottery, we should not be losing focus on our wider call to add to our right to independent living with the distraction of this bill.”

She pointed out that royal medical colleges and domestic abuse charities had described the bill as “unsafe and rife with coercion”.

She said: “The safeguards that were built into the bill in the Lords risk being lost.

“We should be investing in improving lives, not ending them.”

Disability Rights UK (DR UK) said bringing the bill back was “unacceptable” because of its “profound gaps and flaws”.

Bethany Bale, DR UK’s policy manager, said “Suggesting that the Lords’ attempts to strengthen the assisted dying bill were undemocratic completely misrepresents the significant risks posed by the legislation.

“A private members’ bill, which requires less scrutiny than other legislation and no public consultation, was never an appropriate way to pass such substantial changes.

“We urge the government to prioritise a right to independent living, and invest in our social care and palliative care services, before allowing time to re-visit this dangerous bill.”

Another disabled people’s organisation, BuDS Disability Service, said it was “extremely disappointed” by Edwards’ decision and would continue to oppose the bill.

Its chair, Andrew Clark, said Edwards “could have achieved something positive and helpful” with her place in the ballot instead of reviving the failed bill, and he urged all MPs, whether or not they support assisted dying in principle, to vote against the bill when it receives its second reading.

He said: “There is a broad consensus that this bill is fatally flawed and dangerous.

“A proper examination of the issues, led by a neutral enquiry, is needed before Westminster considers fresh legislation.”

He said disabled people “need a break from the constant attacks by politicians – on benefits, on Motability cars, on health and care services, and now on our actual lives.

“Let’s see Westminster give us a legal right to independent living, rather than a legal right to a medical death.”

*Deaf and disabled people’s organisations