March 27, 2025 - 10:00am
Doctor-assisted suicide may not be available in England until at least 2029 if it is made legal, after a significant amendment to the UK’s assisted dying bill.
Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill had specified that assisted deaths should take place within two years of a law being ratified. However, substantive changes to the bill at the committee stage — a new, panel-based system for oversight of assisted suicide cases, and a requirement for an Assisted Dying Commission to be established — caused doubt that the law could operate within this time frame. A four-year implementation plan is therefore now expected, following an amendment tabled by Leadbeater herself.
This news has not gone down well among supporters of the legislation, who want access to assisted dying in the UK sooner rather than later. Proponents are also aware that the new timeline means that any implementation of the law will coincide with the next general election. As such, the highly contentious issue of assisted suicide may still be in the headlines as Britons prepare to go to the polls. Many Labour politicians will feel nervous about this, with good reason.
Requiring the NHS to park its core ambition in order to facilitate people’s assisted suicides has been described as betraying the legacy of Aneurin Bevan, hence why one MP yesterday warned of a move to the “National Health and Assisted Suicide Service”. The delay means that such criticisms will continue in years to come, with greater emphasis in the lead-up to 2029. Labour MPs may be fielding questions about controversial, Government-instituted assisted suicide infrastructure as they seek re-election. It’s unlikely any parliamentarian would relish the opportunity to do that.
Last year, Keir Starmer gave his tacit support to Leadbeater, as did other members of the Cabinet. At a political level, it may have been felt that a debate on assisted suicide in the first year of a new parliament and a new law coming into operation quickly was expedient. The previous two-year time frame may have allowed for this, but the new proposal changes things. Critics will be wondering what this means for Number 10’s position on the issue.
Leadbeater’s bill has already faced criticism over improper scrutiny at the committee stage. More than 500 amendments were lodged to change the bill — a stat that does not suggest well-drafted legislation. Analysis shows that just 18% of amendments accepted were from critics of the bill, compared to 82% of accepted amendments from MPs in favour. Committee proceedings were extended far beyond normal sitting hours in what is seen by some as a rush to force through changes. It was perhaps no surprise that, as committee scrutiny concluded, a group of Labour MPs issued a letter urging colleagues to vote down Leadbeater’s bill, which they described as “flawed and dangerous”.
In the coming weeks, MPs will have to decide their final position on the bill, grappling with the views of constituents and colleagues alike. If they choose to back it at third reading, the issue of assisted suicide will be kept alive politically until the end of the current parliament. Arguably, this development benefits opponents of a change in the law, and it puts the Government in a difficult bind. The mood of Parliament on the bill has shifted significantly in recent weeks, and it can shift again. Time will tell whether this has become too toxic a piece of legislation for Westminster as a whole.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhat a truly awful MP, who would prefer to kill people than sort out appalling palliative care provided by the NHS. What some people will do for their 15 minutes of fame.
As time has progressed we’ve seen all the safeguards slowly eroded to little more than a rubber stamping exercise and then handed over to the private sector to administer the lethal dose.
The Netherlands and all other countries that have adopted similar legislation quickly moved the goalposts,.as would happen here.
I profoundly disagree with you, and your use of such language as “prefer to kill people” adds nothing to the debate.
We’ve heard all the “slippery slope” arguments, and many of them have validity. Still, there’s a huge number of people who’d support such a bill, and indeed constantly lobby their MP to support such a measure. Such people are perhaps less vocal than those waving placards, and using over-emotive language.
Their views, and mine, are every bit as valid and whilst this attempt to enact legislation is looking increasingly botched, there will come a point when a better proposal with proper safeguards can be enacted. When that time comes, many people will breathe a huge sigh of relief having watched their loved ones having to suffer unbearably – beyond even the best measures of palliative care – and to deny that doesn’t happen is wilful blindness and inhumane.
Would you rather “snuff them”?
The slippery slope isn’t just an argument. It’s the reality on the ground once such laws are passed.
As to, lots of people support it. Lots of people support lots of things that are poison for society. It’s why we are in the mess we are in.
And I’m sure alot of people will be happy with such a law. Putting irritants out of your misery is usually well regarded.
Do you really think it’s a good idea to give governments the guillotine controls with the missive to benefit society?
Given your opening remark, the rest of your comment went unread.
It’s a serious debate, not a play on words.
Kinda chicken huh. I understand. And I agree, it is a series debate, whether to give the kind arms of government the keys to the hearse. And keep in mind I believe people make the best decisions for themselves. And that is in all things. It’s just not suitable as a government service.
Yes but why does she want to kill people, instead of improving palliative care?
You’re repeating the false argument from the original comment. This is not an exclusive either/or choice – they are separate and largely independent decisions.
It’s certainly not clear to me that assisted dying legislation would incur any great costs and remove resources from palliative care. Indeed, opponents of assisted dying frequently claim it’s driven by cost saving (which would release resources for other programs – if this assumption were true).
I know.
But it’s ‘not a good look’ as the children say.
Strange decision by Labour to spend political capital on pushing this through at a time when the NHS and social care need so much attention.
You seem to be ignoring the people who would chose to be “killed” (including me, when the time comes).
The opponents of Assisted Dying usually do, Martin. It is always easier to attack flawed legislation than acknowledge the uncomfortable fact that many people, perhaps the majority, want something like this for themselves.
If Chris and his fellows do not, fair enough. He does not have to ask for it.
On flawed legislation : It’s worth remembering that no legislation or justice is perfect, or perfectly delivered without errors. Who amongst us believes that our justice and health systems today are infallible ? The challenge is to create a law that is to a better standard with fewer errors than those it supercedes.
Then pay for it yourself.
Is there anything further away from God’s plan for mankind than supporting abortion, assisted suicide, the plight of blood thirsty terrorists and believing that men can become women? We may have finally reached maximum derangement.
Nah! There’s plenty more derangement to come.
There’s no such as “God’s plan”, and citing that is a bankrupt means of debate.
The “blood thirsty (sic) terrorists” think they’re following their god’s plan. If that doesn’t signal the idiocy of the concept, nothing will.
Perhaps you are not aware of the Holy Bible then? No worries, it’s your choice. I just hope you are correct, since the downside is pretty significant. If I’m wrong, there is no downside.
That bloodthirsty tome, whose 613 commandments include ordering death by the sword, strangulation, hanging, and stoning? As well as genocide against non-favoured peoples?
The Holy Bible? The one about the God who was happy enough for his son to be tortured to death?
Oh, yes. The ‘downside’. This is the threat to torture forever those who do not submit to the self-appointed priests of a particular brand of sky fairy….
So typical of a god of love….
Diane Abbott and her parliamentary Left had the correct instinct about the sinister transhumanism at the heart of this paradigm shift in healthcare. They might have focused on the bullying into consent ot the elderly or disabled by relatives but their interventions seem to be enough to produce a counter-revolution here, more succesful you might think than the White Mensheviks against Lenin’s Reds.
I don’t agree with most of what Dianne Abbot says. However, she is right about this bill. Brave and courageous in what she said in HoC.
She is diabetic (as am I) and, were it not for her public status, she would be very much in the line of fire.
“Assisted dying law delay could be a victory for opponents“
Let’s hope so, an outrageous law only amplified by recent reports of the increased scope of this horror in The Netherlands……fingers crossed it never makes the statute books..
The Dutch seem happy with their laws, as we in Australia are happy with ours.
…… always a good thing to learn from the mistakes of others….
You are in favour of terminally ill people suffering?
Indeed, where is the actual evidence that the Dutch are unhappy and wish to revise their law ?
In the old days before litigation family doctors upped morphone levels to stop pain -and sometimes the patient passed away painlessly.
This was a sensible mature thing to do. So should we not indemnify GPs against any claims if they are applying pain relief. Then no one would need an assisted dying bill.
That sort of thing happened, and it was always a grey area legally. Far better to have things codified.
Legal Assisted dying and an overstretched NHS is a highly dangerous mix.
Why? It doesn’t take much of an NHS doctor’s time to give someone the “green needle”.
People have fairly divergent views on this topic, which i guess is why it makes the news. For my part i cannot see why a liberal, secular society would not allow this. Particularly with the large number of chronically severely ill and suffering people we have and are going to continue to have, many of whom would rather take a slightly more expedited and comfortable exit. I include myself in that regard. I certainly would not want to spend the last few years of my life in decripitude sliding further into the oblivion of something like Alzheimer’s or dementia…. No, give me the doctor’s help not their prolonging of my agony and distress.
Because you don’t want the state pressuring people to off themselves.
It’s hard to know how to draft an assisted killing Bill well.