In the coming weeks, Parliament will confront one of the most emotionally charged and deeply personal issues imaginable: the question of whether terminally ill individuals should have the right to choose the timing and manner of their death. This vote on assisted dying could reshape Britain’s approach to end-of-life care, offering a moment of profound reflection on autonomy, dignity, and compassion.
For many, the current law is a source of anguish. As it stands, individuals facing the final stages of terminal illness often endure unrelenting suffering, with no legal means to control their fate. Some even feel forced to travel abroad to places like Switzerland, where assisted dying is allowed, leaving behind the comfort of home and loved ones. This decision should not be made in desperation or isolation, but with the dignity and peace that comes from knowing that the choice is their own.
Kim Leadbeater, a Labour MP, has courageously taken up this cause, introducing a bill that aims to change the law. Her words capture the heart of this debate: this is about offering people the right to “choose dignity” at the end of life, rather than suffering or being driven to make unbearable decisions in faraway lands. She recognises the fear and pain that comes with terminal illness and believes people should have a compassionate alternative.
The conversation around assisted dying is not just about laws; it’s about humanity. It’s about acknowledging the raw, painful reality faced by those who know their time is limited, and their families, who often feel helpless as they watch a loved one suffer. It’s about granting them the ability to make one final, deeply personal choice—on their terms.
Public support for this change is strong, with many feeling that terminally ill individuals should have the right to decide when enough is enough. However, there are also genuine concerns. Some fear that vulnerable people might feel pressured to end their lives prematurely due to a lack of adequate palliative care or fears of being a burden. These voices remind us that any law must be carefully constructed to ensure safeguards are in place, protecting the most vulnerable while respecting the wishes of those who seek relief from unbearable suffering.
The upcoming vote will transcend political lines, as MPs are given the freedom to vote according to their conscience. For many, it will be a deeply personal decision, shaped by their values, their understanding of life and death, and, often, their own experiences with terminal illness—whether through family, friends, or constituents.
This is not an easy debate. It cuts to the core of what it means to live with dignity and die with grace. But it’s a debate that touches countless lives. As one MP put it, life is not just about how many moments we have, but about the quality of those moments. For many facing terminal illness, the ability to choose how they spend their final days could offer a measure of peace in an otherwise harrowing journey.
In the coming weeks, Parliament will have the opportunity to listen—to those who are suffering, to their families, to the medical professionals on the frontlines of end-of-life care, and to all those who believe that how we face death says a great deal about how we value life. Whatever the outcome, this debate will be about more than just legislation—it will be a reflection of our collective humanity.
Bereavement Award
When someone dies in England and Wales due to the negligence of another the amount of compensation on offer (set by the Government) is just £15,120. Such a pitiful award for a loss of a child or partner. Should Parliament also look into this award and increase it? Scotland has more sympathetic approach and awards are made taking into account the close love and affection of the loss. Read further on our bereavement award compensation and let us know.
Examples of an Unjust Law
Here are some examples of why the bereavement award is an unjust law:
- In the death of an illegitimate child (under 18 years), the mother receives bereavement entitlement while the father gets nothing. But as the law stands, even if the father was entitled to an award, both parents would have to share it, thus they would receive £7,560 each for the pain, grief and suffering. Somehow the death compensation will mean, to reflect society perhaps, the parents shared suffering means they share the award? There is no logical conclusion other than penny-pinching.
- If an adult child (18 years plus) was killed in a road accident, the parents would receive nothing. Yet if the child was 17 years and 364 days old at the time of the accident, the parents would receive the full bereavement compensation. But that, as we have said before is still an insult and the parents would have to share it.
- In the death of a parent, for some unknown reason, a child receives absolutely nothing for the death of her/his mother or father. Maybe the lawmakers at the time thought that if both parents died in a fatal road accident it would mean the children would be over-compensated because the insurance company for the person at fault would have to pay two awards. Therefore, for whatever reason, a child losing his/her parent(s) gets absolutely nothing. It is not right.
- When a child sustained fatal injuries whilst under 18 but dies when over 18 years, no bereavement damages are entitled. Can you believe it? No award is payable thanks to the case of Dolema v Deakin(1990).
