Date: Friday 17th April 2026
Release time: Immediate
Public back House of Lords acting as our “moral guardian” against unsafe assisted dying bill
- Six in 10 believe the House of Lords has a ‘moral obligation’ to block or amend legislation that puts the vulnerable at risk.
- Almost four in 10 of the public are still confused about what the Bill actually does, with many mistakenly believing it refers to stopping medical treatment.
- 68% of decided voters say the House of Lords must not be ‘steamrolled’ by parliamentary procedures if safety concerns remain unaddressed.
The British public overwhelmingly views the House of Lords as a vital “safety valve” for the Assisted Dying Bill, with a massive majority believing the Second Chamber has a moral duty to intervene on behalf of the vulnerable, finds major new Whitestone poll.
The poll commissioned by Care Not Killing found that by a ratio of 3-to-1 (62 per cent to 21 per cent), voters agree that Members of the House of Lords have a moral obligation to block or amend any legislation if they believe it could put vulnerable people at risk. This sentiment is highest among young people (73 per cent) and among Labour (69 per cent) and Liberal Democrat (71 per cent) voters.
The findings suggest that public support for the Bill may be built on a “foundation of confusion.” While nine in 10 (91 per cent) of people have heard of the Bill, seven per cent had not heard of it and more than quarter (27 per cent) admitted to not knowing any of its details.
Crucially, nearly one in five (18 per cent) wrongly believe “Assisted Dying” refers to the right to stop life-prolonging treatment – a right that is already legally protected in the UK. When combined with other incorrect answers, nearly 40% of the public cannot accurately define what the Bill proposes.
The poll also suggests a “blasé” assumption of knowledge among wealthier demographics (ABs) who are more likely to support the Bill. While this group is the most likely to claim they are “very familiar” with the Bill’s details, they are actually the least likely to be able to define what Assisted Dying actually is.
Dr Gordon Macdonald, CEO of Care Not Killing, commented:
“This polling exposes a massive ‘knowledge gap’ at the heart of the Assisted Dying debate. A significant portion of the public who support this Bill mistakenly believe it simply confirms rights they already have—such as the right to refuse treatment. This is just one of the many problems with the current debate. This is not a mandate for a change in the law; it is a symptom of widespread confusion caused by the failure of those pushing this assisted suicide bill to explain exactly what changing the law would entail.”
He continued:
“While there are significant problems with this Bill, the public has a much better understanding of the role of the House of Lords. Importantly, they want its members to act as our moral guardian against unsafe and dangerous legislation, scrutinising it, amending it and if necessary, blocking it.”
By a margin of 47 per cent to 23 per cent (rising to 68 per cent and 32 per cent) when excluding “don’t knows”), voters believe that if the Bill fails because the House of Lords is busy addressing safety concerns, no parliamentary procedure (such as the Parliament Act) should be used to override them.
While just under a quarter (23 per cent) of the public believe the Lords should only be able to stop a Bill in “very rare instances” a majority support the Lords’ right to block legislation they believe to be harmful. Asked if the Lords should be able to intervene to stop either “any Bill if they believe it to be harmful”, over a third (35 per cent) agreed, while a further quarter (24 per cent) thought this should apply specifically to backbench bills such as the current assisted dying bill.
Dr Macdonald concluded:
“Voters are clearly looking to the House of Lords to act as the adults in the room. There is a powerful, cross-party consensus that the Lords have a moral obligation to act as a check and balance against dangerous legislation that puts the lives of vulnerable people at risk. Their message is crystal clear, they don’t want this legislation steamrolled through. They want the Lords to take whatever time is necessary to protect the vulnerable, even if that means the Bill fails to pass in this session.”
Ends