Scotland has rejected an unsafe ‘assisted dying’ Bill, England and Wales should not accept one that, in important respects, is even worse, writes David Albert Jones.
On 17 March 2026 the Scottish Parliament rejected the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, sponsored by Liam McArthur MSP, by 69 votes to 57.
The Scottish Parliament had accepted the principle of the Bill but rejected the actual Bill that they were presented with. Most MSPs could not in conscience pass a Bill that they were not convinced would offer adequate protection for vulnerable people.
A recurrent concern in the debate was coercion, including the real danger, highlighted by Anni Donladson, and by the think tank The Other Half, that women in coercive or abusive relationships would take their lives under this Bill. MSPs were also aware that, in other jurisdictions, people had chosen assisted suicide because of inadequate social care or because they felt they were a burden to others. The McArthur Bill would not prevent this.
Another concern was the impact on medical professionals and on hospices and care homes. In December 2025 the Scottish Government determined that the Scottish Parliament did not have competence to legislate on ‘employment protections for people who refuse to be involved in assisted dying’.
If the Bill had passed, the Scottish government would have asked Westminster to draft legislation to address issues of conscience. However, when MSPs voted on the Bill they had no power over what these conscience protections would look like. They were faced with an ‘unconscionable’ Bill.
The English Bill is like the Scottish Bill but even more dangerous
On 11 September, the House of Commons will vote on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill introduced by Lauren Edwards MP. It is virtually identical to a Bill of the same name previously sponsored by Kim Leadbeater MP.
The Edwards Bill is very similar to the McArthur Bill. Both use the term ‘assisted dying’ to mean enabling a patient to take their own life (‘assisted suicide’) and exclude a doctor directly ending the life of a patient (‘euthanasia’). Both would make it legal for a doctor to provide a terminally ill adult, who was expected to die within six months, with a lethal drug for the purpose of ending their own life. This is the model of ‘assisted dying’ legalised in Oregon and in a dozen other States in the United States.
However, there are at least three important differences between the Edwards Bill and the McArthur Bill, and in each case the Edwards Bill is even less safe.
The English Bill expressly permits a doctor to ‘encourage’ suicide
There is no statute law in Scotland specifically on suicide, though someone who assists suicide in Scotland might be guilty of some other offence, such as ‘culpable homicide’.
In contrast, in England and Wales, ‘encouraging or assisting’ suicide is an offence under the Suicide Act 1961. The word ‘encouraging’ was added in 2009, in part to ensure that it covered people posting on internet sites that encourage suicide.
The Edwards Bill amends the Suicide Act 1961 so that a doctor could give a patient a lethal drug for them to end their own life, without being guilty of ‘assisting suicide’. However, it also exempts from liability a doctor ‘encouraging’ a patient to end their own life. Irrespective of whether the law changes, no one should ever be encouraged to take their own life.
The McArthur Bill acknowledged the danger that a patient’s decision may be shaped by ‘undue influence’. In contrast, the Edwards Bill exposes patients to the danger of undue influence by explicitly permitting a doctor to ‘encourage’ someone to take their own life. The McArthur Bill was dangerous. The Edwards Bill is more so.
The English Bill presumes people have capacity to decide to end their own lives
The McArthur Bill sets out its requirements for capacity to make a lawful decision to end your own life. In contrast, the Edwards Bill refers to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) for its definition of capacity.
This is a gross misuse of the MCA, which Government Ministers at the time stated was not intended to legalise ‘assisted dying’ and which expressly excludes decisions that are motivated by a desire ‘to bring about a person’s death’.
The MCA begins with a presumption that all adults have capacity to make decisions for themselves until evidence shows otherwise. It is a very minimal threshold and does not safeguard people who wish to end their own life.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists is neutral on the principle of ‘assisted dying’ but opposed an earlier version of Edwards Bill because the misuse of the MCA is a danger to people whose desire for death is influenced by a treatable mental health problem. In a similar way, Professor Louis Appleby, the national lead for England on suicide prevention has warned that an earlier version of the Bill ‘may hamper suicide prevention work’.
The McArthur Bill did not have adequate safeguards for people with mental illness, and was rightly rejected as unsafe, but at least it did not tie a person’s decision-making capacity for ending their life to the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. The Edwards Bill, with its reliance on the MCA, is more dangerous.
The English Bill would force hospices and care homes to participate in assisted suicide
A major concern with the McArthur Bill was that, shortly before the final vote, it removed all protection of conscience from the face of the Bill. Nevertheless, while the Bill provided no protection for people not to participate, it included no duty to participate on individuals or on institutions. It also required Scottish Ministers to make regulations to ‘specify any settings or services where assistance must not be provided’ (20A (1A)) This opened the possibility of protecting institutions that did not wish to participate.
It is also worth noting that at Stage 2, before the conscience clause was removed, there had been protection for organisations.
18 (1A) An individual or organisation must not be subject to any detriment for not participating in anything authorised by this Act to which that individual or organisation has a conscientious objection.
This accords with the view of most people, who think that, if assisted dying is legalised, hospices and care homes should not be forced to participate.
In contrast, the Edwards Bill never uses the term ‘conscience’. Instead of acknowledging the fundamental human right to freedom of conscience, the Bill provides protection for professionals from ‘detriment’ (Schedule 3) whether as a result of participating or of not participating. In practice this means that institutions such as hospices or care homes cannot uphold a policy of not participating. They cannot prevent an employee from encouraging or assisting a patient or resident to end their life, if this is done in accordance with the law.
The Edwards Bill contrasts with the law in Oregon and other States in the United States that have legalised ‘assisted dying’. All allow institutions to make non-participation a requirement of employment. Individuals are protected for not participating or for participating but the latter protection is qualified by the rights of institutions to have their own policies.
On protection of conscience, the McArthur Bill was uncertain, but the Edwards Bill is certainly bad. It represents an existential threat to many hospices and care homes.
A better way
The Prime Minister, Andy Burnham has stated that the debate over whether to legalise assisted suicide should happen only after ‘fixing the funding of palliative care and social care’.
It is clearly the case that a law should not be implemented while heath and social care is inadequate. No one should be given the means to end their life because they cannot receive adequate care. The Prime Minister is saying more than this. Too many of the examples given in the current debate are due to inadequate care. We need to fix palliative care and social care before we can have a debate that is based on evidence and not on fear.
The Edwards Bill is the wrong Bill at the wrong time.
It is the wrong Bill because it is unsafe for vulnerable people, even less safe than the McArthur Bill that was rightly rejected by the Scottish Parliament in March. It is worse on ‘encouraging’ suicide. It is worse on ‘capacity’. It is worse on ‘conscience’.
It is the wrong time because, until we address provision of palliative care and social care, we will not have a context for a truly informed debate on ‘assisted dying’.
The Edwards Bill should be rejected because it is dangerous and so that Parliament can focus on the enormous and generational challenge of securing funding for palliative care and social care in a way that is just and sustainable.
As the Better Way Campaign encouraged people to write to MSPs with their concerns about Liam McArthur’s Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, so we are encouraging people to ask their MP to vote against Lauren Edwards’ Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.