Here’s what all the organisations have said about the Bill :

We have debated this deeply divisive and flawed Bill for over a year and nothing has changed nothing. This Bill will hand sweeping, unchecked powers over life and death and our NHS to future governments..whoever they are. Insane stuff.

NEW: The Assisted Dying Bill is returning to Parliament this week. Labour MP Lauren Edwards will reintroduce it on Wednesday after coming 2nd in the private members’ ballot. “The process has been frustrated by a small minority”, she argues.

“We just cannot support this Bill” President of The Royal College of Psychiatrists, Dr Lade Smith, told @BBCNewsnight that they do not support the Assisted Dying Bill due to concerns they say “have not been addressed”

8. Maybe the most striking thing, however, is the words which aren’t in Edwards’ statement: Poverty. Disability. Mental health. Social care costs. Feeling a burden. Domestic abuse. Hospices. NHS.

Colleagues in Australia expressing concern about the poor evidence base for #AssistedDying medications used. Are some patients still awake, but unable to move a muscle? Some will be. blogs.bmj.com/spcare/2025/03…

1. AS for the depressed. Most people, by a clear majority, do not think those with severe mental illness should be allowed to request AS. The bill specifically allows this (Cl 2 (4)).

Lauren Edwards MP statement says “[The TIA bill] was rightly described as the safest and most robust assisted dying law anywhere in the world” No. It was only described this way by the people trying to push it through. Here is how others described the Bill: 1. The Royal College of Physicians said the Bill is unsafe 2. The Royal College of Psychiatrists said the Bill is unworkable, and unsafe 3. The British Geriatrics Society said the Bill’s safeguards are not adequate 4. Domestic abuse charities said the Bill is unsafe 5. Organisations representing disabled people said the Bill is unsafe 6. Royal College of GPs says the Bill lacks adequate safeguards 7. Lord Stevens, ex NHS CEO, said legislating for assisted dying in the current climate of hospice cuts is “utterly ridiculous” 8. MIND says the safeguards are not adequate 9. The CLADD group at KCL (DOI) have said the Bill is “not fit for purpose” 10. The British Association of Social Workers say the Bill’s is not safe enough Spot the pattern?

I was sad to see her letter actively mislead. She said the "official Impact Assessment examined it to ensure it was workable, effective, and enforceable". It did not come to that conclusion, and no minister has said it is in fit state. Nor will they say it is safe.

🚨 BREAKING: The Assisted Dying Bill will be reintroduced to Parliament next week by Labour MP Lauren Edwards

I want to introduce you to Steve. He’s 83. His wife died a few months ago and he comes to this lodge in Spring Mill, Indiana and draws. He taught art in Terre Haute, IN his whole life. He also did courtroom sketches in court cases. In the comments I’ll share some pics from his sketchbook. He was excited when I said I was going to share his sketches with the world.

A divided Right is dangerous. But a hollow Right is useless. Restore is right to stand in Makerfield because blindly falling in behind Reform, as it currently stands, is not the answer. Burnham is dangerous. A united Left would be disastrous. But the Right cannot win by becoming another empty vehicle built around personality, failed Tories and policy drift. That pressure is necessary. In fact, it may be the only thing that saves the Right before 2029.

In his Summa Theologiae, St Thomas Aquinas laid out one of the most charitable yet practical arguments concerning immigration that effectively shaped the West for almost 1,000 years. 1. Immigration must always be proportionate so that foreigners can properly assimilate into the culture and mode of worship of the state. 2. Citizenship – and associated rights – should only ever be granted after the third generation to preserve the culture, mode of worship, and constitution of the state. 3. The common good of the citizens must remain the highest priority of the state, meaning, the state's obligation to provide aid to its neighbours can never be at the expense of the citizens. However, Aquinas ends with the sobering reminder that some peoples and states are incompatible with one another, and these must be held as "foes in perpetuity".