header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
01 August 2014 / Catriona Nicol , Khawar Qureshi KC
Issue: 7617 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Assisted Dying Bill: time to reflect?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
specialist_humanrights_nicol

The Assisted Dying Bill as currently drafted is highly unsatisfactory & in need of significant amendments, say Khawar Qureshi QC & Catriona Nicol

On 18 July 2014, the House of Lords debated the Assisted Dying Bill, which legalises physician-assisted dying for terminally-ill patients. The proposed change in the law has been met with criticism, both as a matter of principle and practice.

The Bill is the fifth dealing with assisted dying to come before Parliament in 10 years (with previous Bills (three introduced by Lord Joffe between 2004 and 2006 and one introduced by Lord Falconer in 2013) in substantially similar terms to the present Bill) having failed to become legislation). In 2006, Lord Joffe’s Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill was defeated following debate by 148 votes to 100.

Commission on Assisted Dying

The Commission on Assisted Dying (COAD) (a non-state body launched in 2010 with funding from Terry Pratchett and Bernard Lewis, patrons of Dignity in Dying) was set up to consider whether

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
NLJ this week: Do Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor meet the misconduct bar?
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
NLJ this week: Supreme Court unlocks ‘lost years’ windfall for injured children
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
NLJ this week: Finality trumps freedom in arbitration showdown
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll