The bill stipulates people will have to have been given six months or less to live, must have two doctors saying they are eligible and a High Court judge would have to make a final decision.
Lawyer Alexa Payet, who has represented the families of British people who have chosen assisted dying overseas, told Sky News the costs could run into “tens of thousands of pounds”.
She also said because the scope of the bill is so narrow, people who are terminally ill but have longer to live will still choose to go overseas to die.
“Nothing about legal procedure has been set out in the bill yet but I can imagine the process could be tens of thousands of pounds,” she said.
More on Assisted Dying
Related Topics:
“That begs the question as to whether any funding will be made available.”
Chancellor Rachel Reeve this week refused to say if assisted dying would be made free under the NHS, ahead of a committee of MPs being formed on Wednesday to scrutinise the bill and propose amendments.
Image: Labour MP Kim Leadbeater introduced the assisted dying bill to parliament, which passed its second stage last month
Ms Payet, partner in the disputed wills and estates team at Michaelmores LLP, has successfully fought for the families of British people who have gone to places like Dignitas in Switzerland.
As assisted dying is currently a criminal offence, British people who help someone to die at an overseas clinic are can commit a crime which means they are not allowed to benefit from the proceeds from wills or shared assets.
Helping could entail filling out the Dignitas form or organising transport.
Ms Payet has worked on, among many others, two cases that have become case law, which has allowed judges to dismiss other cases – but people still have to go through a criminal investigation before.
She said the cost of lawyers to get a High Court judge to approve the application would be considerable.
Then there would be the legal costs family members might need for helping the person to die, because the Suicide Act may still apply so anybody encouraging or assisting suicide would be criminally liable.
They would then need to pay for lawyers to fight for their right to claim inheritance.
Image: Lawyer Alexa Payet, who specialises in relief against forfeiture, warned the cost of assisted dying could be very high. Pic: Michaelmores LLP
Ms Payet said: “Any family members who provide any form of assistance getting them to that stage of assisted death, they don’t seem to be covered by this bill as drafted.
“I think there’s a question mark over what would happen with those individuals, both from the criminal aspect, but also from the forfeiture.
“It seems to me that the law, as it stands, may apply to those people, and that’s something else that should be given some consideration.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:42
Opinions remain divided after assisted dying vote
She added there has been no mention of whether legal aid would be available, but said many people would not be eligible yet still could not afford the legal fees.
“This bill is incredibly narrow,” she said.
“Anecdotally, most of the people that go off to Dignitas are not people that fit this category of the terminally ill with six months or less to die.
“So, even if that bill was passed, it’s not going to affect the large majority of people who are currently taking steps to obtain an assisted death.
“Those people are presumably still going to go off to these overseas clinics which cost around £10,000 to £15,000 but then there’s also the associated costs like travel, with some people needing an air ambulance.”
A growing rift has emerged in Washington, D.C., between the cryptocurrency industry and labor unions as lawmakers debate whether to ease rules allowing cryptocurrencies in 401(k) retirement accounts.
The dispute centers on proposed market structure legislation that would allow retirement accounts to gain exposure to crypto, a move labor groups say could expose workers to speculative risk. In a letter sent on Wednesday to the US Senate Banking Committee, the American Federation of Teachers argued that cryptocurrencies are too volatile for pension and retirement savings, warning that workers could face significant losses.
The letter drew immediate pushback from crypto investors and industry figures. “The American Federation of Teachers has somehow developed the most logically incoherent, least educated take one could possibly author on the matter of crypto market structure regulation,” a crypto investor said on X.
The AFT letter to Congress opposes regulatory changes that would allow 401(k) retirement accounts to hold alternative assets, including cryptocurrency. Source: CNBC
In response to the letter, Castle Island Ventures partner Sean Judge said the bill would improve oversight and reduce systemic risk, while enabling pension funds to access an asset class that has delivered strong long-term returns.
Consensys attorney Bill Hughes said the AFT’s opposition to the crypto market structure bill was politically motivated, accusing the group of acting as an extension of Democratic lawmakers.
Funds held in US retirement accounts by type of account plan. Source: ICI
Opposition to crypto in retirement and pension funds mounts
Proponents of allowing crypto in retirement portfolios, on the other hand, argue that it democratizes finance, while trade unions have voiced strong opposition to relaxing current regulations, claiming that crypto is too risky for traditional retirement plans.
“Unregulated, risky currencies and investments are not where we should put pensions and retirement savings. The wild, wild west is not what we need, whether it’s crypto, AI, or social media,” AFT president Randi Weingarten said on Thursday.
The AFT represents 1.8 million teachers and educational professionals in the US and is one of the largest teachers’ unions in the country.
According to Better Markets, a nonprofit and nonpartisan advocacy organization, cryptocurrencies are too volatile for traditional retirement portfolios, and their high volatility can create time-horizon mismatches for pension investors seeking a predictable, low-volatility retirement plan.
Bitcoin and Ether volatility compared to other asset classes and stock indexes. Source: US Federal Reserve
In October, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) also wrote to Congress opposing provisions within the crypto market structure regulatory bill.
The AFL-CIO, the largest federation of trade unions in the US, wrote that cryptocurrencies are volatile and pose a systemic risk to pension funds and the broader financial system.
The US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has conditionally approved five national bank charter applications for companies tied to the digital assets industry.
In a Friday notice, the OCC said it had conditionally approved BitGo, Fidelity, and Paxos to convert their existing state-level trust companies into federally chartered national trust banks. In the same announcement, the regulator said it had conditionally approved new applications from Circle and Ripple for national trust bank charters.
“New entrants into the federal banking sector are good for consumers, the banking industry and the economy,” said Jonathan Gould, the Comptroller of the Currency, adding: “The OCC will continue to provide a path for both traditional and innovative approaches to financial services to ensure the federal banking system keeps pace with the evolution of finance and supports a modern economy.”
Europe’s crypto regulatory framework is entering a new phase of scrutiny as policymakers weigh whether enforcement of the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation should remain with national authorities or be centralized under the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
MiCA, which came largely into force at the beginning of 2025, was designed to create a unified rulebook for crypto-asset service providers across the European Union.
But as implementation progresses, disparities between member states are becoming harder to ignore. Some regulators have approved dozens of licenses, while others have issued only a handful, prompting concerns about inconsistent supervision and regulatory arbitrage.
In this week’s episode of Byte-Sized Insight, Cointelegraph explored what those growing pains mean for Europe’s crypto market with Lewin Boehnke, chief strategy officer at Crypto Finance Group — a Switzerland-based digital asset firm with operations across the EU.
Uneven enforcement fuels calls for oversight
According to Boehnke, the core challenge facing Europe isn’t the MiCA framework itself, but rather how it is being applied differently across jurisdictions.
“There is a very, very uneven application of the regulation,” he said, pointing to stark contrasts between member states. Germany, for example, has already granted around 30 crypto licenses, many to established banks, while Luxembourg has approved just three, all to major, well-known firms.
The ESMA released a peer review of the Malta Financial Services Authority’s authorization of a crypto service provider, finding that the regulator only “partially met expectations.”
Those disparities have helped fuel support among some regulators and policymakers for transferring supervisory powers to ESMA, which would create a more centralized enforcement model similar to the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
France, Austria and Italy have all signaled support for such a move, particularly amid criticism of more permissive regimes elsewhere in the bloc.
From Boehnke’s perspective, centralization could be less about control and more about efficiency.
“From just purely the practical point of view, I think it would be a good idea to have a unified… application of the regulation,” he said, adding that direct engagement with the ESMA could reduce delays caused by back-and-forth between national authorities.
MiCA’s design praised, but technical questions remain
Despite criticism from some corners of the crypto industry, Boehnke said MiCA’s overarching structure is sound, particularly its focus on regulating intermediaries rather than peer-to-peer activity.
“I do like MiCA regulation… the overarching approach of regulating not necessarily the assets, not the peer-to-peer use, but the custodians and the ones that offer services… that is the right approach.”
However, he also noted that unresolved technical questions are slowing adoption, especially for banks. One example is MiCA’s requirement that custodians be able to return client assets “immediately,” a phrase that remains open to interpretation.
“Does that mean withdrawal of the crypto? Or is it good enough to sell the crypto and withdraw the fiat immediately?” Boehnke asked, noting that such ambiguities are still being worked through and are awaiting clarity from ESMA.
To hear the complete conversation on Byte-Sized Insight, listen to the full episode on Cointelegraph’s Podcasts page, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And don’t forget to check out Cointelegraph’s full lineup of other shows!