Assisted dying/assisted is not a priority for the public, who want the government to cut waiting lists, improve cancer care, fund mental health services, provide assistance for disabled people and children with special educational needs, and fund improved palliative and hospice care.
In fact, legalising assisted dying/assisted suicide was the least favoured option out of 11 possible areas, backed by just one in eight (13 per cent) of those surveyed. By contrast, 70 per cent of those polled want the government to reduce waiting lists, 54 per cent to ensure adequate ambulance services, and 44 per cent to improve cancer care.
Commissioned by the leading anti-assisted dying group Care Not Killing, the survey found a clear majority of those expressing a view (63 per cent) agreed with comments by the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, who has said the cost of assisted suicide over 10 years could reach £425 million, money that could be put to better use.
Dr Gordon Macdonald, CEO of Care Not Killing, commented: “This new poll confirms exactly what doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals have been saying, their patients neither want nor need assisted dying, instead they want the government to fix our broken NHS. The public’s priorities are cutting waiting lists, supporting palliative care and Hospice is an improving cancer care not pushing with indecent haste a policy that will fundamentally change the NHS and healthcare in the UK and lead to the deaths of the vulnerable, the elderly and disabled people exactly as we have seen in the handful of places that have legalised assisted suicide or euthanasia.”
Get the latest pro-life news and information on X (Twitter). Follow @LifeNewsHQ
Asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement: “Parliament should not consider legislating for assisted dying/assisted suicide until specialist palliative care is available to every patient in the UK across every day of the week”, four in ten (41%) agreed compared to 30 per cent who disagreed. Of those expressing a view, the figures rose to nearly six in 10 (57 per cent) agreeing and four in 10 (43 per cent) who disagreed. Among the over-75s fully half (52 per cent) agreed with the statement rising to 67 per cent when the “don’t knows” were excluded.
Interestingly, the statement was also more strongly supported by those in less wealthy socio-economic groups (46 per cent of DEs) compared to 38 per cent of ABs, and by respondents from ethnic minorities (47 per cent to 40 per cent).
The poll followed interventions from several major doctors’ groups before the summer, including the Royal Colleges representing psychiatrists, physicians and GPs, who raised concerns that the Bill in its current form is deeply flawed and unworkable. And a new letter from the doctors’ group, Our Duty of Care (Odoc) published today and signed by over 50 leading psychiatrists, criticising the Bill as being a “seismic shift in the established role of the psychiatrist from the prevention of suicide to assisting suicide, undermining our ethical responsibilities and the trust placed in us by patients and society.”
It goes on: “As psychiatrists, we have extensive experience in assessing and treating individuals who express a wish to die. We know that people with terminal illness are at heightened risk of depression, demoralisation and impaired decision-making. Their requests are often shaped by untreated symptoms, by pain and fear, or by social and financial pressures. The Bill makes no provision for these needs to be identified and addressed. Without such safeguards, assisted suicide cannot be regarded as an autonomous or informed choice.
“We are also deeply concerned at the proposed statutory role of psychiatrists on every assisted dying review panel. This would compel psychiatrists to adjudicate prognosis in cancers, organ failure and neurological diseases. These areas are wholly outside our professional competence. The General Medical Council’s guidance is clear: doctors must not practise beyond their expertise.
“The Mental Capacity Act 2005 was never designed to test capacity in the context of a decision to end one’s own life. Yet the Bill introduces no new framework for this most serious determination, and no effective safeguard against subtle coercion or undue influence. This leaves vulnerable patients exposed and unprotected.
“Assisted suicide is not treatment. To embed it within the NHS risks confusing professional duties, eroding trust in the NHS, and presenting death as an option equal to care. That is not the role of medicine…”
The psychiatrists hope that it will encourage peers to carefully consider dozens of amendments which are expected to be tabled to the Leadbeater Bill at committee and report stages, including restoring the role of the high court, adding in additional protections for those with eating disorders and safeguarding all health care professionals, hospices, care homes who do not want to be involved in killing those people they are looking after.
Dr Gordon Macdonald concluded: “As this dangerous Bill reaches the House of Lords, it is vital peers are given the time they need to scrutinise this legislation, which was supported by less than half of MPs, is riddled with problems, and which doctors’ groups have said make it unworkable. In short, they need to significantly toughen up the weak safeguards that fail to protect the vulnerable and elderly, fail to protect disabled people, especially those with hidden disabilities like autism, and, before any change commences, ensure that there is universal access to the best quality palliative care, regardless of postcode, ability to pay, or ethnicity. If these problems can’t be corrected, then peers must ignore pressure from campaigners driven by an extreme ideology and vote down the draft legislation.”
Methodology note: Whitestone surveyed 2090 UK adults online on 29-31 August 2025. Data were weighted to be representative of all adults. Whitestone is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.
