start the conversation

Our lines are open Monday to Friday 8pm to Midnight and Saturday/Sunday 4pm until Midnight.
If our lines are closed, you can always call 999 or 111 or visit the following links:


CEO demands further answers regarding the Assisted Dying Bill: What is in the legislation?

CEO demands further answers regarding the Assisted Dying Bill: What is in the legislation?

Statement Yvette Greenway-Mansfield CEO of SOS Silence of Suicide

The ongoing debate surrounding assisted dying legislation is one that evokes deeply personal, ethical, and moral considerations. At SOS Silence of Suicide, we recognise the complexity of this issue and the importance of ensuring that any legal framework prioritises safeguards, dignity, and comprehensive end-of-life care.

As the scrutiny committee undertakes its critical role, several key questions must be addressed:

  1. Medical Expertise & Due Diligence – The proposed requirement for two doctors to assess eligibility raises concerns about their specialisms. Are these doctors experts in the illnesses affecting those seeking assisted dying? Without specialist knowledge, there is a real risk that assessments may lack the depth required to ensure informed and ethical decision-making. Additionally, the stipulation that the two doctors should not know each other is a reasonable safeguard to prevent unconscious bias or a pre-determined agreement.
  2. Choice, Dignity & End-of-Life Care – Many individuals advocating for this legislation express a desire to control the timing of their death, often due to concerns about deteriorating health and the perceived inadequacy of palliative care. This underscores the need for greater investment in and reassessment of the UK’s end-of-life care system, ensuring that every individual has access to comprehensive, compassionate, and effective support in their final days.
  3. The Process & Its Implications – Clarity is needed on how the ingestion of a liquid substance improves the dying experience. If this process merely induces deep sleep before death, does it truly alleviate all suffering in the way that proponents suggest? More transparency and medical insight are required to understand the full implications of this method.
  4. Timing, Practical Limitations & Drug Effectiveness – One significant concern is the requirement that individuals must be physically capable of self-administering the lethal dose. The progression of many illnesses can be rapid and unpredictable, what safeguards exist to ensure that the process does not fail individuals who have been granted permission but become unable to act in time? We must consider whether this bill, as it stands, could inadvertently exclude those it is intended to support. Additionally, there must be reassurances about the effectiveness of the drug used to aid death. We do not want a situation, as has been seen in parts of the United States, where incorrect drugs or improper dosages result in prolonged or painful deaths. It is imperative that any approved method ensures a truly peaceful and dignified passing, with no risk of unnecessary suffering.
  1. Mental Health & Non-Terminal Conditions – For those living with non-terminal conditions, disabilities, or chronic illnesses that severely impact quality of life, there must be a more extensive conversation about the availability of support services, mental health care, and alternative interventions. It is vital to ensure that those struggling with suicidal ideation due to their circumstances receive the care and hope they deserve rather than feeling that assisted dying is their only option.

While this is a highly emotive and divisive issue, our focus remains on ensuring that all voices are heard, especially those most vulnerable. Any decision must be guided by rigorous scrutiny, ethical responsibility, and a commitment to upholding both choice and the highest standards of care.

Yvette Greenway-Mansfield
CEO, SOS Silence of Suicide