Mounting Opposition to Assisted Suicide 

Robert Clarke  

Around the world, debates around assisted suicide are intensifying. In March, Scotland resolutely rejected the practice, while Alberta announced significant new legislation to protect individuals from it. Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, a bill that would legalise the practice in England and Wales looks set to fail in the House of Lords as there will be insufficient time to consider proposed amendments before the end of the Parliamentary session. 

Scotland’s decision was particularly notable given that its parliament is largely composed of left-leaning and centre-left parties, yet the bill was defeated. Leaders from the Scottish National Party, Labour, and the Conservatives, along with the country’s last two First Ministers, united in a rare show of unity. The final vote rejected the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill by 69 to 57, protecting the vulnerable from the clear dangers that come with these laws. 

The following day, Alberta introduced legislation that would significantly roll back Canada’s expansive Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) regime. Under the proposed law, individuals must be expected to die within the next 12 months to qualify, and assisted suicide would be prohibited for those whose sole condition is mental illness. This step reflects growing awareness of the dangerous personal and societal risks posed by state-sanctioned death. 

Deaths under Canada’s MAID program in Alberta have risen 109% over the past four years, making it one of the leading causes of death nationwide. Alberta’s Premier, Danielle Smith, emphasised that the law is “about protecting vulnerable Albertans.” While the federal government moves to expand MAID across the country, including for mental health conditions alone, Alberta is drawing boundaries to safeguard those at greatest risk. If enacted, the Safeguards for Last Resort Termination of Life Act would bar assisted suicide for minors, prohibit cases based solely on mental illness, and codify additional protections and rights for healthcare providers to object on conscience grounds. 

It’s important to recognise that no amount of “safeguards” can truly make assisted suicide safe. Legalising the practice inherently endangers human life. However, Alberta’s proposed legislation is a step toward shielding vulnerable citizens from an increasingly permissive system. 

The experience of jurisdictions that allow assisted suicide consistently shows a pattern: Once death laws are introduced, they expand. This reality is what the UK Parliament has been confronting. 

Proposals for assisted suicide can start with broad public support, but enthusiasm wanes once the real-world consequences are examined. In Scotland, Liam McArthur’s Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill initially gained momentum last year. Over time, as lawmakers scrutinised the specifics, support diminished. By the final vote, many who had initially been favourable had turned against it, finding the bill increasingly difficult to defend. 

One of the most impactful contributions from the Scottish Parliament came from Jeremy Balfour, a parliamentarian and lifelong disability-rights advocate. Drawing on his personal experience, he urged lawmakers to consider the implications of living in a society where dependency is seen as a burden. He highlighted that disabled individuals across Scotland were watching anxiously. “We cannot legislate against the feeling of being a burden,” he said.  

Experience elsewhere reinforces this concern. In Oregon, where assisted suicide has been legal for nearly 30 years, an increasing number of patients cite worries about burdening others. Additionally, the demographics of those requesting assisted death have shifted: whereas initially many were privately insured, by 2021, a majority relied on government insurance, indicating that vulnerability and circumstance heavily influence these life-and-death decisions. 

In Scotland, organisations representing general practitioners, psychiatrists, and palliative care specialists all raised serious objections to the bill. Several shifted from neutral positions to opposition as debates progressed, concluding that no safeguards could neutralise the inherent risks. 

Canada’s experience illustrates how quickly those concerns can expand. What began as a something focused on terminally ill individuals has grown into one of the most permissive assisted suicide systems in the world. Activists have consistently pressed for broader eligibility with provisions in place to extend MAID to mental illness.  

For the UK, the hope is that Parliament resists a similar trajectory. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, approved by the House of Commons last year, now appears likely to fail in the Lords due to unresolved questions and the parliamentary session’s end. This outcome should be welcomed.  

Tragically, this week also saw the UK Parliament decriminalise abortion up to birth, allowing fully developed babies to be terminated at any stage. A second amendment to restore mandatory doctor consultations instead of the “abortion pills by post” system was rejected. These decisions reflect a profound disregard for human life, with far-reaching consequences for both mothers and society at large. 

The same legislative body now faces decisions about assisted suicide. If the bill fails to pass, as now seems likely, it will be a cause for great relief. Scotland’s experience shows that closer scrutiny makes assisted suicide impossible to justify, and Alberta demonstrates a jurisdiction now plotting a different path. There is no safe version of this law. Westminster should let this bill die, and keep it that way.