In May of 2025, I dropped my first piece on the rising tide of assisted suicide in the United Kingdom. A bill had been proposed to legalize the practice of physician-assisted death (or variations of the same) with the appropriate amount of government “oversight.” Appropriate here means the health system is run by the government, which is the most dangerous kind and most likely to land you at the end of that slippery slope. Which is to say, end you.
State-run health care is a budget line-item and an expensive one whose bottom line is easily improved by adding “situations” in which expensive health care begets a recommendation of assisted suicide. It already happens in Canada, so that’s not speculation; after which it is a small skip and a hop to political assassination for “mental health” reasons or any chronic situation the government could pretend, or, if you remember COVID, create.
The not-so-United Kingdom has plenty of problems and a government-run health care system, so assisted suicide would be the perfect remedy for any number of perceived ills, none of them the illusion that this has anything to do with compassionate end-of-life care. Passage seemed likely, even imminent.[Related: MacDonald: Assisted Suicide Bill Advances Without Safety Net]
Lauren Edwards’ assisted suicide Bill has been defeated by 286 votes to 270 in a major victory for opponents of the Bill, settling the issue in England and Wales for a generation after a two-year national debate.
The assisted suicide Bill was opposed by the leaders of Labour, the Conservatives, Reform UK and the Liberal Democrats, while not a single Northern Irish MP voted for it.
Not so united, except in their concerns over assisted suicide, and this bill had a lot of issues, one of which was the obligation to treat the patient, not encourage their prompt and convenient demise.
The notion that psychiatrists and medical professionals’ first obligation is to life should not seem unique. First, do no harm means what it means. Professional ethics should at least suggest that this is less than a last resort, and as such, RC Psyche rightly states that wanting to die is a symptom that, if not first fully considered and treated, fails the patient who contemplates “assisted” suicide.
Killing someone is easy. Convincing someone with chronic illness, especially if they are in pain, is likely easier. Once you’ve mastered that, coming up with excuses to add conditions and people to the list converts a call for compassion into sanctioned genocide, and that culture has a habit of looking for more bodies, not fewer.
Does anyone think that a DSA-run government, the sort of people who applaud assisted suicides that look a lot like assassinations, would constrain itself under such circumstances to the few who are truly near death and in pain?
I hope not, which must then translate to: well, what sort of government can we trust with the management of this awful power? The only correct answer is none.
England and Wales just dodged a bullet, but advocates will never give up. They’ll keep their powder dry, reload as soon as it is legally possible, and take another shot. And, as with most issues, their side has nothing better to do while ours has plenty, so the odds are almost always in their favor.
