In what’s shaping up to be one of the most divisive moments in the history of UK healthcare, a controversial bill has just passed through Parliament—one that could change how we view life, death, and medicine itself.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed by a razor-thin margin and is now headed to the House of Lords.
But beneath the surface of legal language and “safeguards,” critics say this bill takes Britain down a very dangerous path.
Assisted Dying… or Euthanasia by Another Name?
The bill insists that any life-ending action must be self-administered by the patient.
That means doctors can’t physically give a patient a lethal dose—they can only prepare it, offer the means to take it, or guide them through it.
On paper, it avoids being labelled as “euthanasia.” But philosopher Professor David S. Oderberg argues that’s just semantics.
The distinction, he believes, is more about legal loopholes than actual ethics.
What Happens When Self-Administration Fails?
One clause in the bill—Clause 11—asks doctors to talk to patients about what happens if something goes wrong during self-administration.
That alone raises a red flag. What if a patient can’t finish the dose, or administers it incorrectly and ends up suffering even more? What happens then?
These aren’t far-fetched hypotheticals. Imagine someone with motor neurone disease or advanced MS—people whose minds are sharp but bodies have failed them.
If they want what this bill offers but physically can’t act on it, the system leaves them behind.
In fact, it punishes them for being too sick to die.
When Compassion Turns Into Legal Pressure
Professor Oderberg warns this kind of “unfair” situation is exactly what will be used to push for even broader legislation in the near future.
He predicts someone will challenge the law, claiming it’s cruel to deny assisted dying to those physically unable to self-administer.
A court could then be forced to reinterpret the bill—or send it back to Parliament.
And what happens when Parliament is asked to “fix” an injustice? Someone will surely introduce a new amendment to allow doctors to perform the act directly.
Before long, what began as assisted dying could quietly evolve into legal euthanasia—the active killing of patients.
How Did We Get Here So Quickly?
It’s not just this bill. Just days earlier, MPs also voted in favor of decriminalising abortion up to birth, marking another sharp shift in the country’s approach to life-and-death issues.
Professor Oderberg sees these back-to-back decisions as a moral collapse—what he calls “a descent into the abyss.”
He laments that a country once admired globally for its palliative care, hospice systems, and compassionate end-of-life support is now setting the stage for state-sanctioned killing—however gently worded the legislation might be.
A Warning, Not Just a Critique
Professor Oderberg isn’t simply arguing technicalities—he’s making a moral case.
He believes the bill was crafted with the intent to be expanded and that its current form is just a stepping stone toward broader legal euthanasia.
He accuses Parliament of ignoring its duty to protect the most vulnerable and calls on society to rethink the direction it’s heading.
His warning is clear: What seems compassionate on the surface may, in practice, open the door to a system that fails the very people it claims to help.