Assisted dying: What is in the legislation?
MPs will on Friday have to make one of the biggest decisions of their careers – whether or not to back assisted dying.
The proposed law would make it legal for over-18s who are terminally ill to be given medical assistance to end their own life in England and Wales.
Politics Live: No 10 denies reports of extra bank holiday next year
The bill – called the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – sets out detailed requirements in order to be eligible.
The Labour MP proposing it, Kim Leadbeater, says the safeguards are the “most robust” in the world, but others argue it is a “slippery slope towards death on demand”.
What is in the bill?
The purpose of the bill is to allow adults aged 18 and over, who have mental capacity, are terminally ill and are in the final six months of their life, to request assistance from a doctor to die.
This is subject to “safeguards and protections” which include:
• They must have a “clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life” and have reached this decision voluntarily, without coercion or pressure;
• They must have lived in England or Wales for 12 months and be registered with a GP;
• Two independent doctors must be satisfied the person meets the criteria and there must be at least seven days between the doctors making the assessments;
• If both doctors state the person is eligible, then they must apply to the High Court for approval of their request;
• If the High Court decides that the applicant meets the bill’s requirements, then there is a 14-day reflection period (or 48 hours if death is imminent);
• After this, the person must make a second declaration, which would have to be signed and witnessed by one doctor and another person.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What MPs think of the assisted dying bill
What happens if the eligibility criteria is met?
If a person meets all this eligibility criteria, a life-ending “approved substance” would be prescribed.
This would be self-administered, so the individual wishing to die must take it themselves.
This is sometimes called physician-assisted dying and is different from voluntary euthanasia, when a health professional would administer the drugs.
As well as all the conditions set out above, the bill would make it illegal to pressure or coerce someone to make a declaration that they wish to end their life, or take the medicine.
These offences will be punishable by a maximum 14-year prison sentence.
How is this different from the current law?
Suicide and attempted suicide are not in themselves criminal offences. However, under section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961, it is an offence in England and Wales for a person to encourage or assist the suicide (or attempted suicide) of another.
Ms Leadbeater says the current framework is “not fit for purpose”, as people who are terminally ill and in pain only have three options – “suicide, suffering or Switzerland”.
Assisted dying has been legal in Switzerland since 1942, with the Dignitas group becoming well-known as it allows non-Swiss people to use its clinics.
There is no government-held data on the number of Britons travelling abroad for assisted dying, but other countries where a form of this is legal include the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Luxembourg, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and some US states.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Assisted dying: Lessons from Canada
Why is it being debated now in England?
The issue has gained renewed attention recently due to campaigning by broadcaster Dame Esther Rantzen. The 84-year-old Childline founder has stage-four lung cancer and revealed last year that she had signed up to Dignitas.
Over the past two decades, the debate has largely been driven by legal challenges to the current regime, brought by people who are suffering and say the current laws violate their human rights.
Parliament last considered the issue in 2015, when MPs voted down assisted dying by 330 votes to 118.
👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈
Ms Leadbeater has brought the issue to the fore through a private members bill, meaning it has been introduced by an MP who is not a government minister.
She wants to give people who are terminally ill and in pain a choice, insisting the bill is about “shortening death rather than ending life”.
What are the main arguments for and against?
Lots of campaigners support Ms Leadbeater’s position. The Campaign for Dignity in Dying says it will give people who are facing unbearable suffering control, so they can have a peaceful death.
They do not support a wider law, unlike My Death, My Decision, who want the bill to apply to people who are suffering with an incurable condition, even if it is not terminal.
However some people oppose any change to the current position. This can be for a variety of reasons, but one of the main arguments is the risk of a “slippery slope” – that the eligibility criteria would widen over time.
Others say good end-of-life care needs to be prioritised, and fear some people will feel pressured to opt for assisted dying if they feel like a burden to society.
Read More:
Gordon Brown says assisted dying should not be legalised
Wes Streeting to vote against assisted dying over end of life care concerns
Has assisted dying in Canada ‘crossed the line’?
How will the bill be scrutinised?
MPs will debate and vote on this bill on Friday 29 November.
It is a free vote, meaning MPs can side with their conscience and not party lines.
The government is taking a neutral position, though individual cabinet ministers have come out both strongly for and against the proposal.
If passed on Friday, the bill will have to pass many more parliamentary hurdles before it becomes law.
MPs will get a chance to debate the bill again in greater depth during its committee stage and peers will also have ample opportunity to express their views on the legislation in the House of Lords.
The US Treasury Department sanctioned eight cryptocurrency wallet addresses linked to Russian crypto exchange Garantex and the Houthis.
The United States Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned eight crypto addresses that data from blockchain forensic firms Chainalysis and TRM Labs had linked to the organizations. Two are deposit addresses at major crypto platforms, while the other six are privately controlled.
Visualization of transaction flow related to OFAC sanctions. Source: Chainalysis
The addresses in question reportedly moved nearly $1 billion worth of funds linked to sanctioned entities. Most of the transactions funded Houthi operations in Yemen and the Red Sea region.
Slava Demchuk, a crypto-focused money laundering specialist and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime consultant told Cointelegraph that “the inclusion of Houthi-linked wallets reflects a broader recognition of crypto’s role in geopolitical conflicts and terrorism financing.” He added:
“The implications are far-reaching — compliance frameworks must adapt swiftly, attribution efforts will intensify, and decentralized platforms may face increased scrutiny.“
Demchuk highlighted that the situation reshapes the regulatory landscape. According to him, crypto “is now firmly within the scope of international security.
Who are the Houthis?
The Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah, are a Yemeni political and armed movement that emerged from the Zaidi Shia community. Originating as a revivalist and reformist group, they later became a major force in Yemen’s ongoing conflict.
Related: US DOJ says it seized Hamas crypto meant to finance terrorism
In recent years, the Houthis have engaged in attacks against both military and civilian vessels in the Red Sea with missiles and drones. In January, US President Donald Trump designated the group as a foreign terrorist organization.
The announcement noted that “the Houthis’ activities threaten the security of American civilians and personnel in the Middle East, the safety of our closest regional partners, and the stability of global maritime trade.” The group was recently struck by a US bombing campaign.
Related: Binance claims’ no special relationship’ with Hamas, argues to dismiss lawsuit
Garantex: Russia’s crypto laundromat
Garantex is a Russian crypto exchange that was sanctioned and shut down in early March after purportedly helping money-laundering efforts. At the time, Tether — the leading stablecoin operator and issuer of USDt — froze $27 million in USDt on the platform, forcing it to halt operations.
The platform has reportedly shifted millions of dollars as it sought to reboot under its new brand, “Grinex.”
In mid-March, officials with India’s Central Bureau of Investigation announced the arrest of Lithuanian national Aleksej Bešciokov, who was alleged to have operated the cryptocurrency exchange Garantex.
The arrest of the alleged Garantex founder was based on US charges of conspiracy to commit money laundering, conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money-transmitting business and conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Magazine: Financial nihilism in crypto is over — It’s time to dream big again
Lawmakers in the US states of Minnesota and Alabama filed companion bills to identical existing bills that if passed into law, would allow each state to buy Bitcoin.
The Minnesota Bitcoin Act, or HF 2946, was introduced to the state’s House by Republican Representative Bernie Perryman on April 1, following an identical bill introduced on March 17 by GOP state Senator Jeremy Miller.
Meanwhile, on the same day in Alabama, Republican state Senator Will Barfoot introduced Senate Bill 283, while a bi-partisan group of representatives led by Republican Mike Shaw filed the identical House Bill 482, which allows for the state to invest in crypto, but essentially limits it to Bitcoin (BTC).
Twin Alabama bills don’t explicitly name Bitcoin
Minnesota’s Bitcoin Act would allow the state’s investment board to invest state assets in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and permit state employees to add crypto to retirement accounts.
It would also exempt crypto gains from state income taxes and give residents the option to pay state taxes and fees with Bitcoin.
Source: Bitcoin Laws
The twin Alabama bills don’t explicitly identify Bitcoin, but would limit the state’s crypto investment into assets that have a minimum market value of $750 billion, a criterion that only Bitcoin currently meets.
26 Bitcoin reserve bills now introduced in the US
Introducing identical bills is not uncommon in the US and is typically done to speed up the bicameral legislative process so laws can pass more quickly.
Bills to create a Bitcoin reserve have been introduced in 26 US states, with Arizona currently the closest to passing a law to make one, according to data from the bill tracking website Bitcoin Laws.
Arizona currently leads in the US state Bitcoin reserve race. Source: Bitcoin Laws
Pennsylvania was one of the first US states to introduce a Bitcoin reserve bill, in November 2024. However, the initiative was reportedly eventually rejected, with similar bills also killed in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.
Related: North Carolina bills would add crypto to state’s retirement system
Montana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Wyoming are the five states thathave rejected Bitcoin reserve initiatives. Source: Bitcoin Laws
According to a March 3 report by Barron’s, “red states” like Montana have faced setbacks to the Bitcoin reserve initiatives amid political confrontations between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
Additional reporting by Helen Partz.
Magazine: Financial nihilism in crypto is over — It’s time to dream big again
Update (April 3, 5:43 am UTC): This article has been updated to add information on the STABLE Act and GENIUS Act.
The US House Financial Services Committee has passed a Republican-backed stablecoin framework bill, which will now head to the House floor for a full vote.
The Committee passed the Stablecoin Transparency and Accountability for a Better Ledger Economy, or STABLE Act, with a 32-17 vote on April 2, with six Democrats voting in favor.
The bill was introduced on Feb. 6 by committee Chair French Hill and the chair of its Digital Assets Subcommittee, Bryan Steil — reportedly drafted with the help of the world’s largest stablecoin issue, Tether.
Source: Financial Services GOP
The bill would provide rules around payment stablecoins, a crypto token tied to a currency such as the US dollar, and aims to ensure issuers give information about their business and how they back their tokens.
During an earlier markup session, the committee’s leading Democrat, Maxine Waters, who later voted against the bill, criticized her Republican peers for “setting an unacceptable and dangerous precedent” with the STABLE Act.
She said President Donald Trump could use the bill to allow his family’s stablecoin to be used in government payments, and argued the bill validates Trump “and his insiders’ efforts to write rules of the road that will enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.”
In late March, the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial crypto venture launched a stablecoin, World Liberty Financial USD (USD1). Meanwhile, the US Housing Department, which oversees social housing, was reportedly looking to experiment with using stablecoins for some of its functions.
Stablecoin GENIUS Act also weaves through Congress
Other stablecoin-related bills are also working their way through Congress, including the Republican-led Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, or GENIUS Act, which lays out oversight and reserve rules for issuers.
Related: Crypto has a regulatory capture problem in Washington — or does it?
The US Senate Banking Committee voted through the GENIUS Act in an 18-6 vote on March 13, after Senator Bill Hagerty, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, updated it following consultation with the Committee’s Democrats.
Before the vote, Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said the updated GENIUS Act made “significant improvements to a number of important provisions” in areas such as consumer protections and authorized stablecoin issuers.
Both the STABLE Act and GENIUS Act will now wait until debate time on the floor of the House and Senate, respectively, before they head for a floor vote.
Crypto journalist Eleanor Terrett reported on X that two unnamed crypto lobbyists said there is likely to be “a coordinated push behind the scenes over the next few weeks to get the two bills to mirror each other, as there are still some differences between them.”
Doing so would “avoid having to set up a so-called conference committee which is formed so members from both chambers can negotiate to create a final version of the bill everyone agrees on,” she added.
Magazine: How crypto laws are changing across the world in 2025
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports12 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway