Dr Philip Nitschke, the campaigner known as “Dr Death”, spoke at a London event on Saturday after MPs and campaigners had urged Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood to prevent him from entering Britain.
Nitschke, the founder of euthanasia organisation Exit International, appeared at the event to discuss his Kairos device, described by critics as a “suicide collar”. The gathering was held six days before MPs are due to vote on a revived assisted suicide Bill. ([righttolife.org.uk](https://righttolife.org.uk/news/press-release-calls-for-home-secretary-to-block-dr-death-visit-to-demonstrate-sinister-suicide-collar-device-ahead-of-assisted-suicide-bill-vote?utm_source=openai))
The device is designed with two inflatable balloons which place pressure on arteries in the neck, causing a user to lose consciousness before death, according to material released by Right To Life UK. ([righttolife.org.uk](https://righttolife.org.uk/news/press-release-calls-for-home-secretary-to-block-dr-death-visit-to-demonstrate-sinister-suicide-collar-device-ahead-of-assisted-suicide-bill-vote?utm_source=openai))
The organisation had called on Ms Mahmood to use her powers to block Nitschke’s visit. Sir John Hayes, a Conservative MP, said it was “deeply disturbing” that the device was being promoted in Britain shortly before MPs’ vote.
Alisdair Hungerford-Morgan, chief executive of Right To Life UK, also urged the Home Secretary to intervene, arguing that the event could influence the debate over assisted suicide and the future use of such devices.
The vote on Labour MP Lauren Edwards’s Bill is scheduled for Friday, September 11. The proposed legislation is understood to retain provisions concerning devices that could enable a person to self-administer a lethal substance. ([righttolife.org.uk](https://righttolife.org.uk/news/press-release-calls-for-home-secretary-to-block-dr-death-visit-to-demonstrate-sinister-suicide-collar-device-ahead-of-assisted-suicide-bill-vote?utm_source=openai))
Ms Mahmood has broad powers to refuse entry where an individual’s presence is judged not to be conducive to the public good, although the Home Office generally does not comment on individual immigration cases. ([questions-statements.parliament.uk](https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2026-08-28/22065?utm_source=openai))
