Assisted dying vote on a knife-edge, suggests new poll
The Second Reading vote on Lauren Edwards’ controversial Assisted Dying Bill is on a knife-edge, as just over three in 10 MPs back Lauren Edwards’ controversial assisted dying bill as currently drafted, finds a major new poll.
The survey of 100 backbench MPs, commissioned by Care Not Killing, finds that just 37 per cent support the Bill as it stands, while nearly two-thirds, 63 per cent, do not or have reservations about the draft law.
It finds an interesting gap between support for assisted dying in principle and support for this specific legislation. While a small majority of those questioned indicated vague support for the concept of assisted dying "in some form", it found widespread concerns that the current Bill is unsafe and lacks sufficient safeguards to protect vulnerable and disabled people from coercion.
Asked, “I support it in principle and support this Bill as it stands?”, fully one half (50 per cent) of those elected in 2024 said they do, compared to a third (35 per cent) of those elected before 2010, and less than one in five (17 per cent) of those elected between 2010 and 2019.
The poll conducted before the new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, suggested that the focus should be on fixing palliative and social care is likely to intensify pressure on newly elected Labour MPs, who remain the only group of elected representatives where half support the current Bill without additional safeguards.
Speaking at a London care home on 29th July, Mr Burnham was asked about the assisted dying debate and commented, “personally I think there is something that needs to happen first and that’s the fixing of the funding for palliative care and social care”.
The Prime Minister went on to say that having the debate about assisted dying was “very challenging” when the systems are in crisis. He has subsequently indicated that he intends to abstain and has told his ministers to that they “should avoid being part of the public debate and should not express views about the implications of the bill for their department's responsibilities”.
Mr Burnham’s position is in stark contrast to his predecessor, who was known to be a strong supporter of changing the law alongside Lord Falconer and the now disgraced peer Lord Mandelson. In a break with tradition, the former Prime Minister also allowed Ministers to vote in support of the previous bill in Committee, even though the Government’s position was officially neutral.
The survey, which was conducted before the PM’s dramatic intervention, shows that many MPs share his concerns about whether the Bill contains adequate protections - including the risk that patients could gain access to assisted dying faster than to good palliative care, and the consequences for public trust if Parliament passes legislation that does not sufficiently protect people.
Dr Gordon Macdonald, CEO of Care Not Killing, commented: “As everyone from the Royal College of Psychiatrists to those groups who support those with eating disorders and disabled people have repeatedly said, the current Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is an unsafe piece of legislation. It fails to protect the vulnerable, fails to protect medics or institutions that are philosophically or ethically opposed to killing their patients or those they care for via assisted suicide or euthanasia. And in this unsafe form, the legislation and crisis engulfing palliative and social risks creating a perfect storm that will divert cash away from care and see the elderly, sick and disabled people pressured into ending their lives early.”
He continued: “This is why the new Prime Minister is right. The focus of the Government and every Parliamentarian should be to fix palliative and social care first, ensuring universal provision to all those who need it, before pursuing an ideological policy that will fundamentally alter the nature of health care in the UK and lead to the biggest change to the NHS in its history, by forcing a rewrite of its’ founding charter.”
The polling found persistent safeguarding concerns as a comparison of previous surveys (April 2025, spring 2026 and July 2026 find MPs questioning whether the proposed protections are sufficient. Earlier in 2026, 51 per cent disagreed that the previous Bill had sufficient safeguards, while 57 per cent were concerned that none of the major medical and disability organisations supported it. In the most recent survey, 15 per cent of MPs who support the principle of the Bill wanted further safeguards, and two thirds, 66 per cent, said passing legislation that fails to protect people would “undermine trust in the political process”.
Previous polling of MPs revealed that they thought the Bill would create a series of unintended consequences including:
A two-tier system in which patients may access assisted dying faster than good palliative care (56 per cent)
Inconsistent application of safeguards (53 per cent)
Inadequate resourcing for oversight (53 per cent)
NHS funding diverted towards assisted-dying services (52 per cent)
Extension of eligibility over time (52 per cent)
And in rebuke to Ms Edwards, seven in ten MPs (70 per cent), including a majority of Labour MPs say the House of Lords was right to seek amendments because of opposition from disability groups and Royal Colleges. The same figure were concerned that using the Parliament Acts to force through the Bill would create a precedent available to future governments of different colours. While 56 per cent said they were uncomfortable with using the Parliament Acts on a conscience issue.
Dr Macdonald concluded: “This poll reflects the growing unease among MPs on the principle, but most strikingly on the way the legislative process has been handled. MPs by clear majority have concerns that this Bill is unsafe, does not protect the vulnerable or doctors who do not want to kill their patients and ramming it through using the Parliament Acts and powers which are supposed to be limited to a Government’s manifesto and key legislation is just wrong. It’s time to kill off this bill and focus on fixing our country’s broken palliative and social care systems, as the new Prime Minister has said, because we need more care, not killing.”