Why Assisted Dying Could Finally Become Legal in the UK - And Why Some Are Fighting to Stop It
Written By Saarah Chowdhury
In November 2024, MPs voted in favor of allowing an assisted dying bill to pass through to its second stage. The proposed law would permit terminally ill and mentally competent adult patients with less than six months to live to request a physician-assisted death. This vote marks a historic moment after decades of campaigning and repeated failed attempts, including as recently as 2015. However, the bill remains contentious, dividing opinion across political lines, and its future is far from certain. Why has it gained momentum now? And who are the people passionately campaigning for and against this bill?
“There’s quite an emotional weight to campaigning on this because it’s not a hypothetical. So many terminally ill people have my phone number. There are people who have gone to Switzerland with their wives who I talk to every day,” says Nathan Stillwell, Campaign Lead for Humanists UK’s Assisted Dying Campaign. He previously worked at the Jo Cox Foundation, set up in memory of the MP murdered during the Brexit referendum. Cox was a humanist, as is Stillwell, so he had already been following the campaign before seeing the role come up in 2022. “I’ve had family members who we never discussed this with, who probably would have wanted that choice at the very end of their life. I feel bad that we didn’t discuss it at the time because it should have been a more open and honest conversation.”
Humanists UK, founded in 1896, advocates for secularism and the rights of non-religious people in the UK. According to Stillwell, they have been campaigning for assisted dying for over a century. When asked why the bill has gained traction now, he admits, “It’s a question I ask myself over and over again.” In his view, the real question is why political debate has lagged behind public opinion, as polls have consistently shown strong support for assisted dying. Stillwell attributes the bill’s newfound viability to the recent political shift after the 2024 general election: “This is the youngest and least religious Parliament ever.”
Ben*, a fourth-year medical student and opponent of the bill, has a very different perspective on why public opinion skews in favor of assisted dying. “It’s important to ask whether the public has been properly informed. The answer to that is clearly no,” he argues, based on the experiences of himself and anti-assisted dying campaigners. When asked why he opposes the bill, Ben states that “this bill presents itself as something which is pro-free choice. In reality however, the bill only gives “free choice” for a privileged minority,” expressing concern over the overburdened NHS and arguing that safeguards against coercion are unlikely to be effective. Additionally, he challenges the bill’s claim of minimising patient suffering, asserting that assisted dying would weaken palliative care outcomes in the long run. On the other hand, Stillwell contends that legalisation can actually improve palliative care, as it forces greater attention on end-of-life treatment.
When discussing his personal motivation, Ben reveals another dimension: “The first reason is that around eight years ago, I became a Christian.” He explains that his approach to ethical issues is rooted in his faith: “I always try to ask what God’s view on this is.” This conviction has led him to become involved in the campaign against assisted dying, including sharing petitions and meeting with his MP. However, he maintains that his opposition to the bill is still relevant to the non-religious: “If I do include ethical principles, I think they’re ones that we would all agree on.” When asked whether religious beliefs should influence legislation, Ben argues that this question assumes that Christianity hasn’t already shaped much of the UK’s legal framework, and that our conception of rights can be attributed to the “Judeo-Christian” worldview.
According to Stillwell, the unpopularity of religious arguments with the British public is well known. He believes religious groups have adapted their messaging from past failed campaigns against abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and women’s rights. He cites an example of a leading anti-assisted dying group, Christian Action, Research and Education (CARE), using religious reasoning to encourage supporters to write to their MPs, but then omitting any religious language from the email template it asked them to send, “so these MPs got all of these letters in their inbox from a religious group that didn’t mention religion once.”
Herein lies a difficulty Stillwell faces in campaigning: “It’s almost impossible to know whether someone genuinely has concerns about the bill and genuinely wants to see it improve, or they have a fundamental religious opposition to the bill and they don’t want to say it, and therefore they’re using disability arguments or palliative care arguments.” Stillwell describes the challenge MPs face in refining the bill, explaining that, while the process is meant to focus on improving safeguards, many voices in the debate are more intent on restricting or blocking access altogether. “It’s like trying to build a rocket to the moon when half the committee are flat-earthers.”
While Ben’s foundational motivation is religious, he says that the stories he has heard from palliative care doctors and a close non-religious friend who has struggled with mental health issues have given him additional motivation to care about this issue. Ben is certain that the public would oppose this bill if they were better informed, stating that “the media do have, I would argue, a left, if not far left, bias,” supposing that this assumed bias has led to suppression of voices opposing assisted dying. He goes as far as to say that he would not be opposed to a public referendum if there were measures such as broadcast of a 15 minute video by both Dignity in Dying and Care Not Killing first. “I would be confident that we would win that vote.”
The political alignment on this bill is unusual. While Labour MPs were generally in support and Conservative MPs in opposition, there were surprising cross-party alliances. It is rare to see Keir Starmer, Rishi Sunak, and Richard Tice in agreement while Nigel Farage, Sir Ed Davey, and Jeremy Corbyn all stand in opposition. Stillwell attributes this to the deeply personal nature of the issue; people’s worldviews, religious beliefs, and personal experiences with death all play a role. He recounts an MP who opposed the bill in 2015 but changed their vote after an awful death in the family. “That’s why it doesn’t cut through any normal party lines.”
As for why the bill is being pursued through Parliament rather than a referendum, Stillwell explains that “referendum” has become a politically toxic word since Brexit. He also points to New Zealand’s assisted dying referendum, which he says led to a heated and divisive national debate. The private member’s bill process allows for a dedicated committee to scrutinise the evidence line by line, rather than leaving it to a broad yes-or-no public vote. “I obviously think that if it went for a referendum, it would pass, and that’s what happened in New Zealand.”
Where the bill goes from here remains uncertain. Ben hopes it will be rejected, believing that lawmakers should instead focus on strengthening palliative and social care. Stillwell, on the other hand, is pressing forward and working to secure political backing as the bill moves through further scrutiny ahead of the next crucial vote in July 2025. The coming months will determine whether the UK takes a historic step toward legalising assisted dying, or whether the issue is politically put to rest for at least another decade.
*pseudonym
Read the rest of the edition here