As MPs prepare for a historic vote this Friday, former Supreme Court President David Neuberger has expressed his support for a change in the law on assisted dying, a significant shift after his involvement in high-profile cases on the issue. Neuberger, who had previously ruled against assisted dying applications, including those of Debbie Purdy in 2009 and Tony Nicklinson in 2015, stated that the current law is failing to uphold the fundamental aims of protecting both personal autonomy and vulnerable individuals.
In an interview with The Guardian, Neuberger explained that, in his view, the current law fails to protect vulnerable people and does not respect individuals’ rights to make personal decisions regarding their own lives. He emphasized that the bill presented by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, which specifically applies to terminally ill adults, could not be expanded through judicial challenge. Neuberger’s statement is a key moment in the ongoing national debate about assisted dying and reflects growing support for reform, including from high-profile figures.
The bill, which will be debated in Parliament on Friday, is expected to pass its first parliamentary hurdle, with MPs expressing confidence that they have gathered enough support. The vote comes at a time when public opinion on assisted dying is increasingly shifting, with many calling for a more compassionate approach to end-of-life care.
In parallel with the push for assisted dying reform, MPs are preparing to announce a new independent commission on palliative care, aimed at improving end-of-life care for those who do not choose assisted dying. The commission will be led by Labour MP Rachael Maskell and is expected to gain support from Health Secretary Wes Streeting when it is launched in December. High-profile charities, including Hospice UK, Marie Curie, and the Association for Palliative Medicine, are backing the commission, which will also hold hearings to address all sides of the debate.
Despite these efforts, the assisted dying bill faces strong opposition, particularly from disability activists. Pam Duncan-Glancy, a Scottish Labour MSP who uses a wheelchair, has voiced concerns that the bill could disproportionately affect disabled individuals, making it easier for them to die than to receive the support they need to live comfortably. Her impassioned plea to Labour MPs underscores the tensions in the debate, as lawmakers weigh the potential risks for vulnerable populations.
The bill has gained significant backing from notable political figures, including former Prime Minister David Cameron. In an op-ed for The Times, Cameron, who previously opposed assisted dying, stated that he now supports the bill, arguing that it would help reduce human suffering. “Will this law lead to a meaningful reduction in human suffering?” Cameron asked. “I find it very hard to argue that the answer to this question is anything other than ‘yes’.”
TV presenter Esther Rantzen, a prominent advocate for reform, also added her voice, urging MPs to vote in favor of the bill despite her own personal health challenges. Rantzen wrote in a letter to MPs, “My time is running out, but this issue is one the public cares desperately about,” highlighting the urgency of passing the legislation.
However, opposition to the bill remains strong, particularly among some MPs who are concerned about its implications. Several new Labour MPs, including those holding influential positions, have expressed their opposition to the bill, with concerns about its potential impact on disabled people.
As MPs finalize their positions ahead of Friday’s vote, the debate over assisted dying is poised to shape the future of end-of-life care in the UK. The bill’s proponents believe it offers a solution that respects individual autonomy while safeguarding vulnerable populations, whereas its critics argue that it could create unintended consequences for disabled people.
The debate will continue to unfold in the coming days, with MPs given a free vote to cast their opinions based on their own consciences. The outcome of Friday’s vote could have far-reaching implications, both for the legal framework surrounding assisted dying and for the broader conversation on end-of-life care.
Read more: