Thread by @ChrisMid

Today, Parliament reaches a pivotal moment with the third reading of the Assisted Dying Bill, one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in decades.

Some see choice. Others fear risks.

It’s a deeply complex issue. Here's the arguments from both sides.

A thread 🧵

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is the most significant attempt yet to legalise assisted dying in the UK.

It would allow terminally ill adults to request medical help to end their lives, but only under strict safeguards.

On a technical level, it is not voluntary euthanasia. And it is not death on demand.

It is physician-assisted dying, where patients self-administer prescribed medication under regulated oversight.

The bill is the work of Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who introduced it in October 2024 after topping the private members’ ballot.

Since then, it has passed a major Commons vote (330–275), endured 29 committee sittings, and undergone key amendments.

It is now in its final Commons stage.

So what would the law actually do?

If passed, it would allow mentally competent adults diagnosed with a terminal illness (defined as being expected to die within six months) to request life-ending medication.

Proponents argue the process is tightly regulated, with implementation delayed until 2029 to allow safeguards to be put in place.

To be eligible, a person must be at least 18, live in England or Wales, and have been registered with a GP for at least one year.

They must have full mental capacity, act voluntarily, and make the request themselves, unprompted by doctors or others.

Disability or mental illness alone are not qualifying conditions.

The safeguards are extensive.

A person must make two witnessed declarations. Two doctors assess the case a week apart. Specialists may be consulted if needed.

An independent panel comprising a judge, psychiatrist, and social worker must approve the request.

A 14-day cooling-off period follows (or 48 hours if death is imminent).

Coercion is a specific offence under the bill, punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

Once both doctors agree the criteria are met, the case goes to the oversight panel.

Only if they approve does the process proceed.

There is a mandatory cooling-off period: 14 days before medication can be dispensed, or 48 hours if death is imminent.

The law would not permit a third party, including doctors, to administer the medication.

The final act must come from the patient.

This means it is not euthanasia. It is physician-assisted dying.

This is an important legal and ethical distinction.

So why now?

Assisted suicide is currently illegal in England and Wales. It is punishable by up to 14 years under the Suicide Act 1961.

There are no exemptions, even for those dying in agony. Every year, dozens of Britons travel to Switzerland to die at Dignitas.

Many more cannot afford to.

The bill has ignited fierce debate, not just in Parliament but across the country.

Supporters say it is about choice, compassion, and dignity. Opponents say it risks normalising death and devaluing the vulnerable.

Both sides claim to speak for those most at risk.

Advocates point to the suffering of people with incurable conditions who face slow, painful deaths with no legal option to end their lives peacefully.

They argue that requiring people to suffer, travel abroad, or act in secret lacks compassion and raises serious ethical concerns.

They also highlight strong public support.

Nearly 3 in 4 people back the bill in principle, including those who’ve seen undignified deaths firsthand.

Supporters argue it contains more safeguards than any comparable law globally, though opponents question how robust those safeguards would be in practice.

But opponents see danger, not dignity.

Disability advocates, religious groups, and many palliative care experts fear that legalising assisted dying, even in limited cases, sends a message that some lives are less worth living.

And that some deaths may eventually be seen as easier than providing long-term support.

One key criticism is the risk of a slippery slope.

Opponents point to Canada, where eligibility expanded from terminal illness to chronic illness, and later to some mental health conditions.

Could a narrowly drawn UK law gradually widen over time?

That is the fear.

There are practical concerns too.

Hospices warn the NHS is already under pressure, and palliative care is underfunded.

If assisted dying is legalised, will resources shift away from care?

Could some feel pressured to choose it, especially those who are poor, isolated, or under-supported?

That is why many religious and ethical voices oppose the bill. Not out of hostility, but out of caution.

They ask: are we creating genuine choice, or simply offering people a way out of despair?

Still, others argue the law already fails dying people.

They describe the bill as modest, limited, and compassionate.

It wouldn’t mandate participation, but could offer relief to some who suffer.

In their view, it complements, rather than replaces, palliative care.

The bill is now at report stage in the Commons. The third reading vote is today, June 20, by 2:30 PM BST.

If passed, it moves to the House of Lords, where resistance may intensify.

If both houses agree, the UK would join a growing number of countries that allow assisted dying.

However this ends, one thing is clear: the debate is not going away.

It goes to the heart of how we understand life, death, suffering, and freedom.

And whether the state should ever help someone end their life.

This is one of the most complex moral debates we’ll face as a society.

I don’t claim to have the answers, but I hope this thread helped lay out the facts clearly and fairly.

What’s your view?