The debate over the assisted dying bill in the House of Commons has intensified, with MPs deeply divided over its safeguards and scope. While sponsor Kim Leadbeater insists the bill includes world-leading protections, critics argue it has been weakened, particularly after the replacement of High Court oversight with an expert panel. Concerns were raised by MPs including Naz Shah and Anneliese Dodds, who fear the system could miss signs of coercion or abuse.Supporters like Marie Tidball and Liz Jarvis shared moving personal stories, backing amendments that would expand access to those with neurodegenerative diseases. Meanwhile, some MPs who once supported the bill, including Andrew Snowden and Peter Lamb, now oppose it, citing concerns over rushed legislation and underfunded palliative care.When we asked for your views, readers echoed these tensions. In a poll, 56 per cent said the new safeguards were enough.Many argued for greater autonomy and compassion, referencing the suffering of loved ones and calling current restrictions cruel and outdated. Others warned of a slippery slope, adding that controls will never be infallible. Here’s what you had to say:Dementia concernsMy biggest concern is that these systems (UK and Spain, where I live) do not cover dementia, which, it seems to me, is a very cruel and prolonged death. A notarised living will, made while the mind was sound with a named medical proxy to make the final decision if necessary, would cover all protections. And truly, once all pleasure, all joy has gone out of life, why is it such a big deal to bring forward death, which is a certainty? Why condemn people to sit for extra months, knowing nothing, incontinent, when the end is inevitable? Surely, a properly appointed group of people, including medical professionals dedicated to this, makes much more sense than using a High Court judge whose time is needed elsewhere and who may well lack the expertise. Suggesting that this dilutes safeguards is, I suggest, making excuses to hold this up.no commentYou wouldn’t let an animal suffer like thatIf you have experienced a person close to you dying in the most unbearable pain, as I have, you would have no hesitation in believing in the right to die. You would not let an animal experience that sort of death, so why would you expect a human being to suffer? It is beyond comprehension.LilleThe Netherlands system works wellThe system they have had in the Netherlands has worked very well, and with no prosecutions for abuse of the system. My own brother-in-law, who had terminal cancer, opted for assisted dying months before he became bedridden. When he was ready, he sent for the doctors and died peacefully and in control of his pain and suffering. He went with a smile on his face and a joke at the end. Some people in the UK are raising problems that do not exist.TarquinI should have the right to die if I want toSensible processes for assisted dying are increasingly necessary for us all, not just the terminally ill. It’s my life, and I should have the right to die if I want to. And of course, many do just this every day. The conditions being imposed are just red herrings, in my opinion – either by those wanting to confuse the debate or by others thinking they are being kind and caring by insisting on restrictions. What’s needed is an open, full, ‘holistic’ assessment of why people want to die ‘early’, and offering them decent care (specialists assessing their mental state etc.), along with an agreement to help them die if that’s what they truly want. It’s their lives, after all – minimum conditions and restrictions. I’ve seen a family cruelly devastated by having to construct a complicated scenario to help their young, intelligent son take his own life after an accident that left him paraplegic (eight years of total misery) – with the parents having to be absent to avoid being charged. A totally insulting, cruel farce in this day and age.raywA jury is neededGiven that the judicial system has been, and remains, fallible, the title “judge” is not in itself an absolute. Judgment is of fact, provided all facts are apparent. Having a “committee” or group of differing aptitudes and skills allows for opinion variability and thus stronger reasoning. High Court judges analyse information given against statutory law. Others, such as clinicians, also weigh up facts and opinions with equal respect to the facts. Hence, a “jury” of a mixture of skills, including analysis and risk assessment, is a stronger option due to its variety of thought. This does not denigrate the office of High Court judges, nor individual judges’ experience; however, the ability to analyse and weigh up is not exclusive to the judiciary. Many other professionals are trained within their professions to do so.PiepowderControls will never be infallibleSo, “other amendments will require the doctors assessing assisted dying requests to have detailed training on domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse…”? My relative is divorcing her husband of more than 20 years precisely because of domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse. Had she opted, under such circumstances, for euthanasia, she would not have the second chance she now has. I am quite sure that there are other circumstances under which the ultimate choice would be the wrong one. “Controls” to prevent abuse of the system will never be infallible. Currently, those availing themselves of “assisted dying” have more protection than they will if this appalling bill becomes law. It should not become law.IndyReaderEfforts to water down the legislationThose opposed to assisted dying have lost the debate, and they know it. We’re now witnessing desperate efforts to water down the legislation – maybe to make it “unworkable”. They need to be called out on this. I’ve witnessed two loved ones – a wife and a mother – both have their lives needlessly protracted against their wills for weeks, in hospital settings, both in hideous circumstances where even palliative care could do nothing for them. Neither could take any effective steps to end it themselves, although both settled for refusing further feeding and opting to starve (which in my mother’s case took 17 days). It was almost as harrowing for their loved ones, who had to witness the process for weeks on end. If we treated dogs like that, we would be accused of animal cruelty.SteveHillGet on with itI find the whole debate rather ludicrous. This bill is almost irrelevant. At present, by the time the poor person gets all the paperwork done, they will be dead. Everyone is getting stressed by all the checks and balances. The actual percentage of people who might be pressured into taking a tablet is minuscule. I accept this is a big step towards addressing the real problem. Furthermore, a six-month ‘get out of life’ card is fatuous. My mother just died at 100. She spent the last eight years of her life sitting in a chair, unable to communicate or do anything for herself. She told us, while she could still talk, that she wanted to go. Having seen the terrible existence she went through, I am all in favour of a very simplified process. I want to be able to put legal papers in place now so that if I meet certain criteria, I can be legally terminated by my family. It is my life and my choice. Why on earth should a debate be needed? Those who want it – set it up. Those who don’t – do nothing. How simple can this be? In addition, can you imagine the cost of keeping my mother in a good care home for eight years? If the family has no money, it is the government that will have to pay. So there’s the incentive. Get on with it.RobSome 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 article 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. More
