The Assisted Dying Bill has sparked passionate discussion among Independent readers, with opinions divided over its ethical, practical, and societal implications.
When we asked for your views, supporters of the bill argued it offered terminally ill patients dignity and choice at the end of life. Many emphasised the suffering of those enduring intolerable pain and highlighted the robust safeguards in the bill to prevent abuse.
One reader described it as “compassionate and wise,” asserting that the right to die was as fundamental as the right to live. Others called for a legal framework to ensure clarity, particularly for patients with conditions like dementia, and praised the bill as long overdue.
However, critics expressed deep concerns over the potential for misuse and coercion, particularly for vulnerable groups. Some questioned whether sufficient protections were in place to prevent undue influence or hasty decisions. Others suggested the focus should instead have been on improving palliative care, citing examples of relatives who valued their final moments despite severe illness.
Concerns also arose about the role of religious dogma in the debate, with several readers rejecting external moral impositions on personal decisions. Conversely, others feared societal consequences, from a “slippery slope” to the broader devaluation of life.
Here’s what you had to say:
Extend to Alzheimer’s sufferers
I have always been in favour of assisted dying. I would also extend it to Alzheimer’s disease sufferers, giving them the option to choose to go before they turn into a shell.
Pomerol95
‘My life, my suffering, my decision’
What explicitly ethical and humanitarian issues do “no” voters have about this bill? None that I can see, and religious dogma doesn’t count.
“No” voters concerns are more about the unethical and bad intentions of the people they’re actually concerned about, not about the ill persons themselves. In the end, it should come down to “my life, my suffering, my decision.”
DesPear
Wary
I am wary of the assisted dying bill, as there may not be enough protection for those who are vulnerable in our society. Will there be in-depth psychiatric reports undertaken for the patient, and therapy offered first to them? Those who cannot speak up for themselves may find others doing so and deciding that ending their life is in their best interests, although the vulnerable patient may actually want to live.
Even at the very end of life and in pain from cancer, my close relative wanted to remain alive for as long as possible, and I am very grateful for the empathic care that the hospice provided. I believe that we should be looking at offering more empathic and quality NHS care for those who require it; otherwise, the assisted dying bill could unfortunately be misused.
Bkind2all88
Indignity
This is being complicated by Parliament. Establish the right of those who wish to be able to choose when to go in law. Then, once there is a legal framework, those in favour could simply create a lasting POA [power of attorney] which establishes the criteria that must be met to end their life. This is really needed for those who go on to get full dementia and can no longer make decisions. Families already have such POA for making decisions for elderly relatives; it just needs to add a paragraph about assisted dying.
My mother is 99 and has lived pretty much with no cognitive ability for over eight years. She has spent this time sitting in a chair, unable to enjoy even the TV. She indicated to us over ten years ago that she could not wait to go. She would have signed up for assisted death in a heartbeat. The indignity she is now suffering is beyond anything she would have wished. I would sign a paper today to give me a pill when I meet a state similar to my mother.
Rob
Quality of life
If one is critically ill, it is surely only ‘quality of life’ that should determine whether you have a painful, artificially extended life or a painless, artificially assisted death. The safeguards appear more than adequate, while the slippery slope to euthanasia seems overstated and somewhat absurd. It is equally unclear how a termination rather than extended care would strain the NHS, or how the likely numbers would swamp the courts.
Topsham1
‘My choice is not a threat to any other sick people’
I am very strongly in favour of the bill for assisted dying. The bill is not about the right to live—that is already a given. It is about giving an option to terminally ill patients to die when their lives become intolerable for them. Often, dying people are in great pain and distress as their internal organs cease to function properly, and I believe that it is compassionate and wise for them to decide, if they wish, to pass away with dignity and pain-free.
I suffer from both blood cancer and heart failure and absolutely need the option of ending my life peacefully when the time comes. My choice is not a threat to any other disabled or sick people. The safeguards in the bill seem to be very strong and should prevent abuse of the system. I am not a religious person, and other people’s beliefs should not impinge on my rights. The right to die is as important as the right to live.
januaryjohn
It should not be a battle
I am strongly in favour of the assisted dying bill but believe there should be wholesale improvements to end-of-life care offered in this country.
I lost my Mum to pancreatic cancer in 2021; she died within three months of diagnosis. The illness moved quicker than the NHS could cope with, and it was only during the last month that we were lucky enough to get a place in a local, outstanding hospice—the Princess Alice Hospice in Esher. My Mum’s last three months should not have been so traumatic for her, for me, and for our family. At times, we were at our wits’ end about what to do for her, and it was a battle to convince our GP and her consultant that she was seriously ill.
The nurses at Princess Alice were a godsend and recognised how poorly Mum was from their first assessment of her. It should not be a battle. Death will come to all of us, and we deserve to be treated with care, respect, and dignity at our most vulnerable time.
JRS1971
Safeguards are sufficient
Not enough safeguarding? Two doctors, a judge, and you have to be expected to die within six months. By the time this has gone through the process, you would probably already be dead, buried, and the gravestone set.
The people who oppose this are just giving stupid arguments. I am in my 60s and want assisted dying if I am in pain and terminal, thank you.
IDoNotUsuallyReply
‘The mark of a civilised society’
This is the mark of a civilised and compassionate society. To be able to choose when enough is enough and exit on your own terms is a gift, not only to the individual but to the loved ones left behind. Legislation should ensure the tightest safeguards are in place. The government must also review the standards of palliative care in the country, which are woefully inadequate and must do more to support carers looking after loved ones with life-limiting illnesses.
Spangles
Fear of coercion
I want to be able to choose when I go if my life becomes unbearable due to terminal illness. Clerics have no right to dictate on a national level in a functioning democracy with their unwanted input in this matter. They should focus their efforts on putting their venal houses in order.
My concerns are over the possibility of coercion by greedy or tired relatives or predatory types. Also, where will this end? To take a dystopian view, we already have Do Not Resuscitate paperwork in hospitals, a form of euthanasia in all but name. I fear for those seen as ‘burdens’ to society. Most of all, I fear our arrogant, entitled, openly contemptuous politicians who see us as cash-generating ‘batteries.’ What will happen when the ‘batteries’ wear out?
Galileo666
Long-delayed and much needed
I am disabled and, within that limitation, have had a good life. A time will come when the progressive incapacitation cannot be alleviated in any way. The bill is long-delayed and much needed. Those who oppose it for non-religious reasons should seek to make it robust, not ditch it.
MS85
Religious dogma
I want to have a choice about my body and my life. I do not want religious dogma or others’ moral positions superimposed upon me. My life, my body, my choice.
Diane1234
Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original articles here.
The conversation isn’t over. To join in, all you need to do is register your details, then you can take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen.
Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here.
