For many, the failure of the assisted dying bill (MPs vote against legalising assisted dying in England and Wales, 11 September) has brought relief that a manifestly unsafe law will not be entering the statute book. But it should also prompt reflection about how it got this far.

Two hundred and seventy MPs voted for the bill despite multiple warnings from the medical royal colleges and other professional groups responsible for implementing it that it was unsafe and unworkable. Supportive MPs appeared to be voting on an abstract principle rather than engaging with the concerns raised.

An MP’s role is not that of a campaigner or a sixth-form debater. They are legislators who should start by clarifying the problem to be addressed and appraising potential solutions. If the problem is suffering at the end of life, the priority should be addressing the shameful underprovision of palliative care, which affects vastly more people.

If MPs believe there is a case for assisting some people to end their lives, their role is to consider whether and how that could be achieved safely. Instead, parliament was presented with the latest iteration of a proposal first drafted in the 1930s by medical eugenicist Killick Millard, who held disturbing views about “a last service to society by relieving it of a useless burden”. His proposal has returned to parliament repeatedly over the past century, vigorously promoted by the organisation he founded, now calling itself Dignity in Dying. Only its justification, not its content, has been updated as social values have changed.

If parliament returns to this issue, it should approach it afresh and honestly grapple with the complex ethical and practical trade-offs. I, and many others with relevant expertise, would welcome the opportunity to help.
Lucy Thomas
Palliative care and public health doctor

Andy Burnham talked at length about the importance of leadership in his recent campaigns. His decision to abstain in the assisted dying bill gave a clear compass bearing to those Labour MPs keen to follow their leader. It led to the defeat of the bill and will literally cause untold suffering to innocent citizens. This is not leadership, and to hide behind the barricade of “we must improve social care and palliative care first” is disingenuous in the extreme.
Gary Nethercott
Woodbridge, Suffolk

The first letter in this package was amended on 20 September 2026 to include additional wording to reflect the writer’s view.