On 22 May 2025, the Oxford Union assembled to debate the motion ‘This House Believes the Right to Die is a Human Right’. Currently at the report stage, the ‘Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life)’ Bill was introduced by the Labour MP Kim Leadbeater on 16 October 2024, the debate therefore having significant relevance to the moral and legal questions in current society. 

Arguing for the motion were Jennifer Yang, a student at St. Hilda’s College and the Union’s secretary; Lord David Pannick, a prominent advocate in public law and human rights as well as a member in the House of Lords; and Lord David Neuberger, the former President of the Supreme Court who now serves in the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. Opposing the motion were Katie Pannick, a student at St. John’s College; Archbishop Anba Angaelos, the Coptic Orthodox bishop of London since 2017; and Professor Katherine Sleeman, the Chair in Palliative Care, King’s College London.

Before the main debate, members of the Union casually debated the emergency motion: that ‘This House Believes that the UK has become an Island of Strangers’. Members passionately mocked the idea, using personal anecdotes and humour to make their points. The result was an overwhelming victory for the opposition. 

The president also proposed a motion to allow for the flying of the LGBTQ+ pride flag, a result of this term’s controversy. However, there was one objection which claimed that the pride flag is a “political flag”, which “this institution should not be flying”, asking members to “oppose this wretched motion”. Despite this outburst, there was a clear majority who voted in favour of the motion to be passed. 

Opening the debate was the proposition’s Jennifer Yang, who focused on immediately dismantling the typical arguments utilised by those against assisted suicide: that the bill is a “slippery slope” as bureaucratic ease would take away lives, and that life is a sacred gift bestowed by God, which humanity should not interfere with. She emphasised the ambiguity of the term human, drawing in the biological definition alongside the adjectival definition of “humane”–claiming that humanity’s distinguishing feature is our humaneness, which involves the autonomous right to choose the righteous decision. She interestingly brought in John Milton’s Paradise Lost, stating how its narrative highlights how humanity is comprised of interlinking choices through the character of Adam: just as Adam was given the freedom to choose eternal happiness or a more independent state, it is our “fearless autonomy” which affirms our humanity, as individuals should be able to end their lives as “masters of their own houses”. She further breaks down the etymology of euthanasia–‘good death’–which highlights the medical aim to give patients a dignified and peaceful death, a final act of liberty. To further augment this, she draws on the case of Aurelia Brouwers in 2018, who claimed an incompatibility between her mind and body. Yang argued that assisted death was able to restore this gap, giving Bowers control in the liberating choice over her body.  

Katie Pannick opened the case for the opposition who, in an example of the benefits of nepotism, jokingly pointed out that her father was only invited to speak at this debate due to her “illustrious Union career”. Her speech focused on three key points: that the elevation of the right to die would undermine the right to live; that safeguards around assisted dying fail to protect the most vulnerable; and that the truly compassionate response to someone’s terminal suffering isn’t death but palliative care. As evidence, she cited Oregon, where 43 percent of patients taking assisted deaths did so to not be a burden to their family. Furthermore, she pointed out that these deaths have taken up to five days, so aren’t necessarily as dignified as they seem. Finally, she mentioned the risk of allowing someone misdiagnosed with a terminal illness to take an assisted death, when in reality they were not about to die. This, she says, represents a waste of life. She summarised her speech by saying “The right to life is absolute. It is the foundation of human dignity and the safeguard of our most vulnerable”.

Continuing the case for the proposition, David Pannick powerfully opened his argument by claiming that it was “wrong in principle to oppose the proposition”, claiming that the opposition’s case was based on the principle that assisted dying will breach or devalue the individual’s sanctity of life and that UK law has recognised the human right to die since 1961, mocking the opposition for being 64 years too late. He drew upon the Suicide Act of 1961, which recognised that attempted suicide was no longer a crime after the previous prosecution of unsuccessful suicide attempts. He then brought in how the law recognises that if an adult of sound mind refuses hospital treatment and sustenance, the doctors responsible for treatment must recognise and respect the patient’s wishes. He brought in the 1989 case of Tony Bland, who, after the Hillsborough Stadium incident, remained in a vegetative state with no prospect for recovery and could not express his views. In 1993, the House of Lords deemed that it was no longer in his best interest to keep him alive and that the doctors had a legal duty to end his life. He ended on the predicament of the individuals who need help from the assisted dying bill: as a result of the incapacitation, they cannot humanely end their lives. He claimed that their right to die should not be denied if they need assistance, especially as the law already recognises the legal right for an individual to die when they are not incapacitated. 

Professor Katherine Sleeman was next for the opposition. While not opposed in principle to the concept of a ‘right to die’, she learned from her years as a palliative care doctor that too many vulnerable people would be at risk should such a right be introduced, because by nature of their vulnerable condition, these people are voiceless. She then ran through some of the safeguards included in the Leadbeater bill, explaining why they’re not fit for purpose. For example, while forcing an ‘absence of coercion’ is clearly a good thing, it’s unclear when coercion is happening, and it can happen both internally (people convincing themselves they’re a burden even if no one has told them so) and systemically (people from minority ethnic backgrounds are less likely to have access to good palliative care, which evidence shows reduces desire for an assisted death). She closed by saying “I’m really concerned that the right to die will lead to wrongful deaths”, and that voting in opposition doesn’t signify opposition to progress or a lack of compassion, but an understanding that people may be harmed by this change.

To close the proposition’s case, David Neuberger furthered Pannick’s argument that the law has already established the individual’s right to die, stating that the idea that life is sacred and thus should not be interfered with is no longer attainable. He stated that it seems hard to justify forcing the individual to die agonisingly when the bill will easily accommodate assistance. He disputed the opposition’s argument of abuse, claiming that legislation should be put in place alongside the bill to prevent this from happening. He reflected upon the Freedom of Marriage as an example, stating that those who abuse this law have their other freedoms curbed appropriately, then asked the opposition if they would place a blanket ban on this freedom. He emphasised the practical reality, whilst there is no real guarantee that a vulnerable individual will not be affected, he deemed the opposition’s case as speculative. He brought in the legalisation of assisted death in Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Belgium, where there are no official records of abuse, and none after forensic review are revealed to indicate such. He finally closed the proposition’s case by stating that the “slippery slope” argument is weak and built upon fear, with consequences that should not be imagined without hard evidence. 

Finally, closing the case for side opposition was Archbishop Anba Angaelos, who disagreed with an earlier point of information encouraging a dissociation of religious views from the debate, saying religion is part of who he is, as it is for 80 percent of the world, so religious views matter. He rejected the term ‘assisted dying’, calling it a misnomer to cover up what’s actually assisted suicide. His chaplaincy experience taught him that although people suffering immensely may in the moment wish to die, they often come back from this, so we don’t have strong grounds to allow them to end their lives. He also took issue with Lord Pannick’s view that opponents were too late to oppose this measure, believing that it’s never too late to stand up for what’s right. He believes in the sanctity of life, and is opposed to prejudice, making it difficult to understand why, if an elderly patient was allowed an assisted death, the same wouldn’t be permitted for a troubled teen, as all lives are equal. Therefore, he encouraged opposition to the motion.

After hearing all the arguments, members of the Union then had an opportunity to vote for the side that most convinced them. The final result was a relatively close 175 – 134 in favour of the motion, meaning that the Oxford Union does believe in the right to die. At the beginning of the debate, the Chief of Staff claimed that this would be “possibly the most exciting [debate] that we will have”: an evaluation which stood true, both sides making compelling cases which intertwined logic and emotion.