🔥The 9th Round of Easy Loan, Earn $40 Reward is in progress❗️ ⏰ Promotion Period: January 15th - Feburary 15th, 2025 👉 Register now and check more details at gate.io/campaigns/358

Ahead of today’s assisted dying Bill debate, I thought I’d do a thread of FALSE FACTS. You know… campaigning soundbites, PR spin. That come up again and again. And are persuasive… but wrong.

The Bill and this process is a gift to the slopey shouldered - in government, in Westminster and in the media - they’ll wave their hands airily and say it was someone else’s responsibility and they had hoped for the best

Today the Observer has published an extraordinary piece, which I think they view as a romantic case for assisted dying, but which is, in fact, a textbook case of how doctors subvert the rules to help patients without any terminal illness whatsoever to die by suicide. It could

Regardless of how you stand on the principle of assisted dying, this bill is not good enough. It is a poorly crafted piece of legislation being rushed through and as such is potentially very harmful. I will not be voting for it.

One of the many disturbing statements in this suicide pact promotion piece. Really gives a new depth of meaning to the term "logistical nightmare".

This story leaves me with huge questions about whether the husband wanted to die, or didn't want to be left alone- these are different things. No wonder Royal College of Psychiatrists are so concerned about the impact of the Bill on suicide prevention when its supporters find suicide pacts romantic.

I have the utmost sympathy for this family. But this article is precisely why more MPs are turning against the Assisted Dying Bill. Neither of the couple involved appears to have had a terminal illness, yet their deaths went ahead despite “strict” eligibility rules.

The official bodies of doctors and psychiatrists say there are 'deficiencies' in the Assisted Dying Bill - which 'must be addressed to achieve adequate protection of patients and professionals'. A must read for any MP.

The Terminally Ill Adults ‘Assisted Dying’ Bill should be withdrawn.

Joint statement from Royal College of Physicians and Royal College of Psychiatrists sent to all MPs. It couldn’t be clearer: the Bill does not provide sufficient protection for vulnerable people. And yet… hundreds of MPs will vote for this Bill based on a campaigning soundbite that it’s ’safest in the world’.

On my way back to London for the Assisted Dying bill. I can see a libertarian case for the bill, but not a liberal one. Liberals know that our rights must not be at the expense of others losing theirs. Given 47% of Oregon AD deaths were self-coercion, it fails the liberal test.

🚨Since November 2024, the #AssistedDyingBill has been weakened, not strengthened. ⚠️The risks to the vulnerable and coerced have grown and are simply too great. 🧵Below is a thread of 150 people, organisations and voices urging MPs to think again on Friday 20 June👇

#NoWayBack

I and Blair McDougall have written this piece in the The New Statesman to highlight the costs - in every sense - if we were to introduce #AssistedDying. There is a strong Labour case against AD. Here’s why: newstatesman.com/spotlight/heal…

This is my bit of the Labour tradition. Careful, critical, always mindful of the unintended consequences for the people who need our advocacy the most, our precious public services, & the overall balance of rights in a society that belongs to us all. newstatesman.com/spotlight/heal…

After careful consideration, I have decided to vote against the Assisted Dying Bill at Third Reading. This is not a decision I have made lightly, and I respect there are different views on this important topic. I explain my reasons in detail in the attached note.

I’ve been asked to record a video explaining why Amendment 14 doesn’t address the anorexia loophole. That this still needs clarifying — on the eve of the vote — tells you most of what you need to know about the level of scrutiny this bill has received.

That the government’s own lead suicide prevention advisor is so strongly opposed to this bill ought to make MPs think again. Or have we had enough of experts…?

Spot on from Luciana Berger - this bill is deeply flawed. Tomorrow the House of Commons will not vote on a principle but on whether this bill is fit to become law. It is not. It endangers the most vulnerable people we represent.