A Line Parliament Must Not Cross: Why I Oppose the Assisted Dying Bill
In more than five decades of public life—serving communities, working in local government, and representing constituents in Parliament over five terms—I have engaged in many of the most difficult moral debates of our time. Few, however, carry the profound ethical weight of assisted dying.
I opposed such measures while serving as a Member of Parliament, and I remain firmly opposed today. The current legislative effort—the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, introduced by Kim Leadbeater—has brought this issue once again to the forefront of national debate. It is a debate that demands seriousness, restraint, and above all, moral clarity.
This is not simply another policy question. It is a defining moment about the values that underpin our society.
A Divided Parliament—and a Warning Sign
In June 2025, the House of Commons voted by 314 to 291 to advance the Bill—a narrow margin that reflects deep unease across political lines. Keir Starmer himself voted in favour, while maintaining a formally neutral government position, allowing MPs a free vote of conscience.
Yet the story did not end there. The House of Lords has since subjected the Bill to intense scrutiny, with hundreds of amendments and prolonged debate slowing its progress. Critics—including figures such as Tanni Grey-Thompson—have raised serious concerns about safeguards, warning that key provisions are “unsafe and unworkable.”
Recent developments suggest the Bill may fail to pass in its current form, with strong resistance in the Lords and growing concern among both politicians and the public about its implications.
This division is not a weakness of democracy—it is a signal that Parliament is grappling with something profoundly consequential.
My Parliamentary Experience—and Moral Responsibility
During my time in Parliament, including service on committees concerned with health and human rights, I consistently took the view that legislation must protect life, particularly for those who are most vulnerable.
I did not come to this position lightly. I have worked with individuals facing terminal illness, disability, poverty, and isolation. I have seen courage and resilience in circumstances many would find unimaginable.
What I have never concluded is that the answer to suffering is to sanction death.
The current Bill proposes that terminally ill adults, with a prognosis of six months or less, could request medical assistance to end their lives, subject to approval by doctors and legal safeguards.
But laws are not merely technical instruments—they shape the moral culture of a nation.
The Illusion of Safeguards
Supporters of the Bill—including campaigners like Esther Rantzen—argue that it is compassionate, carefully drafted, and contains robust protections.
However, many MPs and peers from across the political spectrum have raised serious doubts. Concerns include:
Whether individuals may feel pressured to choose death due to being a “burden” Whether safeguards can truly prevent coercion Whether the six-month prognosis rule is medically reliable
These are not abstract fears. They are grounded in real-world complexities that legislation cannot fully control.
Even within Parliament, voices such as Labour peer Marvin Rees have warned that the Bill lacks sufficient safeguards and risks unintended consequences for vulnerable people.
A Slippery Slope Already Visible
International and domestic trends reinforce this concern. In parts of the British Isles, including Jersey and the Isle of Man, assisted dying legislation is already progressing, each with varying criteria and expanding interpretations.
History shows that once the principle is established—that the state can assist in ending life—the scope rarely remains fixed.
What begins with terminal illness may extend to chronic conditions. What begins with physical suffering may broaden to psychological distress.
This is not speculation. It is a pattern observed elsewhere.
The Role of Parliament: Protector, Not Facilitator
Parliament exists to protect, not to yield to shifting moral trends without due caution.
Some argue that continued debate is essential to democracy. I agree in principle. But repetition of a proposal—especially one of such gravity—can gradually normalise it.
We must ask: does repeated legislative focus on assisted dying create an expectation that it is inevitable? Does it reshape public perception of life, illness, and dignity?
I believe it does.
And that is why I take a stronger view: Parliament should not continue to revisit this issue as though it were simply awaiting refinement. Some principles must remain firm.
The Ethical Foundation of Medicine
There is also a profound implication for healthcare.
The Bill would fundamentally alter the role of doctors—from healers and carers to participants in ending life. This is not a minor adjustment; it is a transformation of the ethical foundation of medicine.
Medical bodies themselves remain divided. Some warn that introducing assisted dying risks undermining trust between patients and healthcare professionals.
Once that trust is weakened, it is not easily restored.
Compassion Must Mean Care, Not Exit
Supporters often frame assisted dying as an act of compassion. But compassion must not be confused with expediency.
True compassion lies in:
Expanding palliative care Supporting families and carers Addressing loneliness and mental health Ensuring dignity in life—not just in death
A society that offers death as a solution to suffering risks failing in its duty to provide care.
A Cultural Shift We Must Resist
Beyond law and policy lies culture.
If assisted dying becomes normalised, it risks sending a subtle but dangerous message: that some lives are less worth living.
For older people, for those with disabilities, for those who feel isolated—this message can be deeply damaging.
As someone who has spent a lifetime advocating for equality and human dignity, I cannot support a policy that risks reinforcing such perceptions.
My Position Then—and Now
When this issue came before Parliament during my tenure, I opposed it. I did so after careful thought, consultation, and reflection.
Nothing in the current debate has changed that position. If anything, the developments around the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—its contested safeguards, its divisive passage, and the intensity of opposition—have strengthened my concerns.
A Call for Leadership, Not Drift
Leadership requires more than following public opinion or legislative momentum.
It requires judgment.
It requires courage.
And sometimes, it requires saying: this is not the path we should take.
Instead of focusing on assisted dying, Parliament should be directing its energy towards improving healthcare systems, addressing inequalities, and strengthening the social fabric that supports people at their most vulnerable.
Conclusion: A Door That Must Remain Closed
This debate is not just about legislation. It is about the kind of society we want to be.
Do we respond to suffering by investing in care—or by enabling death? Do we protect the vulnerable—or risk exposing them to pressure? Do we uphold the sanctity of life—or begin to qualify it?
My answer remains clear.
We must stand firmly against assisted dying—not only in law, but in principle. And we must seriously question whether continued parliamentary efforts to advance such legislation serve the public good.
Some doors, once opened, cannot be closed.
This is one of them.
Virendra Sharma Former MP Ealing Southall (2007-2024)
The Rise of Opportunistic Politics https://links.ldd.news/jibyx
Labour Home – Press Releases, Op-eds & Podcast Opportunities [https://assets.nationbuilder.com/labourhome/mailings/1/attachments/original/third.jpg?1759567815]
Dear Virendra
I hope you are well.
I am writing from Labour Home to kindly ask if you could add us to your press distribution list so that we can receive your press releases, statements, announcements, and op-eds in a timely manner.
We are continuing to grow Labour Home as a platform for Labour voices across Parliament, local government, business, and the wider movement. Receiving your updates directly will allow us to ensure your work, campaigns, and perspectives are published and amplified to a wider audience.
In addition, our Labour Home Podcast is expanding steadily, and we would be delighted to host you for a conversation—whether to discuss your policy priorities, current campaigns, or broader political insights. It’s a great opportunity to engage with an active and growing audience.
Please do add us to your media list using the details below:
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
You can also explore and follow our platforms here:
Website: https://labourhome.co.uk/ Twitter/X: https://x.com/LabourHome_ Podcast (Apple): https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/labour-home-podcast/id1893164172 Podcast (Spotify): https://open.spotify.com/show/4CbzdZbyc46IODuVtbPPyz
If you would like to feature on the podcast or submit an op-ed piece, please feel free to get in touch directly.
I look forward to working closely with you and supporting the amplification of your work.
Best wishes, James
Labour Home [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
labourhome · United Kingdom
