Has our government gone backwards on basic humanity? This is the question that is frequently present in the people’s minds about our current government as well as our society as a whole. The government is gradually beginning to care for humanity less throughout the years. This is utterly appalling in the sense that the people in power are becoming increasingly demoralised as demonstrated by the tangible Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (UK Parliament, 2024), which is a Bill allowing adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life and for connected purposes. As stated in the Bill (UK Parliament, 2024, p. 1), this raises concerns about how such legislation is interpreted in relation to human dignity.
What exactly makes this Bill inhumane? This Bill is argued to express a reduced value placed on those who are terminally ill, simply by allowing such legislation to be proposed. Technically speaking, this Bill is essentially stating that terminally ill people are going to pass away anyways, so we might as well permit assisted death to save space. How does this exactly save space? It can be argued that from their perspective, this would solve the overcrowding in hospitals that has been a recent crisis. With this, it is further argued strongly that the Bill is targeting the older generation as they are more prone to being terminally ill, raising concerns about whether they are perceived as a burden to society. Basic human rights appear to hold quite considerably elevated levels of insignificance to the government from this alone.
To further the argument that this Bill is inhumane, it is said to actively conflict the Human Rights Act of 1998, established by Tony Blair. In the Human Rights Act, Schedule 1, Article 2 states that “Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law”, actively indicating everyone is entitled to the right to life in the UK. With this in place, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill clearly violates this. The fact that this link must be outlined clearly proves how backwards our society is moving which is extremely concerning. If everyone is entitled to be alive, why must we enforce a law that prevents that, even if it is ‘voluntarily’, as suggested by the Bill stating that the decision to end their own life is “voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured by another person into making it” (UK Parliament, 2024, s. 1(2)(b)). It seems to be that it can be argued that the government sees the ‘voluntary action’ as if it is an exception to the Human Rights Act since the person is accepting assisted suicide from their own wishes, however, it clearly is not. We are denying the right to life if this Bill passes, no matter the circumstances of a person’s condition and wish to carry out assisted death.
In addition, we cannot truly decipher whether the person has been or not been coerced or pressured by another person into carrying out this decision. There would be no utter unambiguous evidence to suggest that the terminally ill person has been persuaded, especially if they are non-verbal. We cannot adequately prove that someone did not persuade them, such as a family member, as there is the possibility that it may have been done verbally in private.
On the contrary, it can be argued that there are series of safeguards and procedures to ensure eligibility and willingness to carry this out (UK Parliament, 2024, ss. 8-22). It highlights how
there will be a range of different steps to ensure that the assisted death is carried out ‘morally,’ without any complications. It specifically states in section 20, there is the option of cancellation of declarations, indicating the patient can withdraw from this entire process, even after making a formal declaration (UK Parliament, 2024, s. 20). In fact, the patient can withdraw at any given moment.
Despite these factors, concerns remain firm. Not only is it extremely time-consuming, but it also has the remaining flaw that we cannot prove that someone has not persuaded the patient. In addition, it still remains rather immoral as it is, in simple terms, assisted suicide.
The recurring question about whether our government has gone backwards on basic humanity actively lingers. If individuals have the undeniable right to life, why must the government enforce a law that actively goes against this? Will this mark the beginning of a shift in morality for the UK?
Bibliography:
- Human Rights Act 1998 (1998) Human Rights Act 1998. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1 (Accessed: 4 May 2026). • Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (UK Parliament, 2024) Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Bill 012 2024–25. Available at:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3774 (Accessed: 4 May 2026).
- Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (UK Parliament, 2024) Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, p. 1. Bill 012 2024–25. Available at:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3774 (Accessed: 4 May 2026).
- Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (UK Parliament, 2024) Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, s. 20. Bill 012 2024–25. Available at:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3774 (Accessed: 4 May 2026).
- Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (UK Parliament, 2024) Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, ss. 8–22. Bill 012 2024–25. Available at:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3774 (Accessed: 4 May 2026).