I am profoundly disappointed by the outcome of the vote on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which passed by a narrow margin of 23 votes. This is not just a political or legal decision—it represents a fundamental shift in how we value life, protect the vulnerable, and approach end-of-life care.
Despite the emotional appeals surrounding the Bill, I firmly believe it is the wrong direction for our society. We should be focused on delivering far superior, accessible, and compassionate palliative care, not legalising assisted dying. This Bill risks sending a damaging message to those who are elderly, isolated, or living with psychological distress—that their lives are somehow less worthy of support and protection.
Over 1,000 doctors, including 24 leading psychiatrists, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Association for Palliative Medicine, have publicly urged MPs to reject this Bill. They have raised deep and evidence-based concerns that cannot simply be dismissed.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists has stated that the Bill allows insufficient psychiatric input, and may fail to properly identify or treat depression or existential distress in terminally ill patients. These are not minor oversights—they are serious clinical failings that could cost lives.
A group of 24 senior psychiatrists warned that the Bill undermines suicide-prevention efforts and disproportionately risks harming elderly or psychologically fragile people. The Association for Palliative Medicine has clearly stated that the priority must be the expansion and improvement of palliative care—not hastening death.
In addition, 73 academic experts in health care, law, and ethics signed an open letter opposing the Bill. They argue that its safeguards are dangerously inadequate and could expose vulnerable individuals to coercion—whether through subtle family pressure or fear of being a burden.
Oxford-based barrister and medical ethics specialist Charles Foster has also warned that this legislation could undermine the very ethical and relational foundations of medicine, calling instead for investment in palliative and hospice services.
These concerns are not scaremongering. They reflect the lived experience of professionals who care for the dying every day. To ignore their warnings is not compassion—it is recklessness.
As the Bill moves to the House of Lords, I urge peers to listen to the clinical and academic voices of reason and compassion who see the real and lasting risks this law would create. We must stand for dignity in dying—but that means better care, not premature death.
Alex Easton MP
Member of Parliament for North Down
