by Rhoda Grant, Fabian Society
Assisted dying is not as progressive as it seems – Labour should think twice before reviving the bill, argues Rhoda Grant
My Labour colleague Lauren Edwards has announced that she intends to revive the assisted dying bill in parliament this term. I believe that would be a mistake. Several Labour MPs have already warned that reopening the issue now would create unnecessary division, and others who previously supported the bill have made clear they do not back any attempt to force it through using the Parliament Acts.
When I, alongside 16 of the other 19 Scottish Labour MSPs, voted against assisted dying in Holyrood, it was because of our left-wing values, not in spite of them. Too often this debate is lazily framed as compassionate progressives on one side and socially conservative opponents on the other. That caricature bears little resemblance to the debate we had in Scotland. Some of the strongest opposition came from people shaped by the Labour tradition: solidarity, equality, disability rights and the duty to protect vulnerable people from economic and social pressure.
Assisted dying forces us to confront an uncomfortable question: what happens when the state offers death in a society that still struggles to guarantee dignity in life?
The Labour movement was built on the belief that people are not truly free when hemmed in by poverty, insecurity, isolation or structural disadvantage. That belief underpinned the creation of the NHS: a moral declaration that dignity and basic rights should never depend on wealth, status or perceived productivity.
Assisted dying risks undermining that principle.
Supporters often present these laws as empowering choice. But choice does not exist in a vacuum. A decision made by someone with excellent care, secure housing, strong family support and financial stability is not the same as a “choice” made by someone who feels like a burden, unable to access adequate care, fears loneliness or believes their needs are exhausting their family.