Terminally ill criticise longer four-year timeframe for assisted dying service
The maximum time by which all parts of a new assisted dying law would have to come into force if a Bill being considered at Westminster is approved has been doubled after a committee voted in favour of extending the timeframe.
If the Bill was to pass later this year that would mean it might not be until 2029, potentially coinciding with the end of this Government's parliament, that assisted dying was being offered.
Claire Macdonald, director of pro-change group My Death, My Decision, said it is 'unreasonable that the Government would need four years to set up an assisted dying service', saying templates for training and guidance exist in other countries where it is legal so do not need to be developed 'from scratch'.
When revealed last week, the change was described as a 'retrograde step' and 'outrageous' by two terminally ill supporters of legalising assisted dying.
Mother-of-two Clare Turner, who has stage four cancer, said: 'Every delay means more suffering, more people forced to endure unbearable pain against their will.'
She said she and others 'deserve dignity, not delays'.
The new timeframe was voted through by a majority as the 23-member scrutiny committee held its last session, which sat into the early hours of Wednesday morning.
Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the Bill, said she was proposing the longer timeframe 'with some reluctance' and acknowledged the upset felt by campaigners for change.
She suggested the establishment of expert panels to consider assisted dying applications, in place of the High Court approval which was scrapped from the Bill in a significant change earlier this month, had contributed to more time being needed.
'Inevitably this will take longer to implement than simply referring cases to the High Court, an institution that already exists,' she told MPs.
While stating that it is important to 'dedicate the necessary time' to implementing safeguards in the Bill, she also noted the 'upset and disappointment many people will feel as a result of a potentially longer commencement period'.
She insisted the four-year timeframe is 'a backstop, it's not a target' as she pledged to 'hold the Government's feet to the fire' on implementing legislation should the Bill pass.
Fellow Labour MP Jess Asato, who voted against the Bill when it was first put before all MPs in November, said the 'last-minute switch demonstrates again just how chaotic this whole process has been with substantial last-minute changes to core sections of the Bill'.
She added: 'Putting an arbitrary timeline on such a complex issue was never a sensible way to make life or death legislation.'
Tuesday's final committee session also saw the approval of the establishment of a voluntary assisted dying commissioner alongside three-member panels featuring social workers, psychiatrists and legal professionals to approve applications from terminally ill adults.
Ms Leadbeater has faced criticism from opponents of assisted dying for scrapping a High Court judge safeguard, which had initially been hailed for making the Bill the strictest in the world.
Speaking at the conclusion of the committee's last session, Ms Leadbeater said: 'Support for a judge-led multi-disciplinary panel came from experts who gave evidence and has received strong backing across all parties, including from committee members who were previously opposed to the Bill.
'We are not removing judges from this process. Rather, we are adding the expertise and experience of psychiatrists and social workers to provide extra protections in the areas of assessing mental capacity and detecting coercion while retaining judicial oversight.'
It has been suggested some MPs who supported the Bill in the Commons in November could change their stance when it returns for a further vote in the coming months, after the change to the High Court safeguard.
But Ms Leadbeater has claimed the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, as amended, is now 'safer, fairer, and more workable'.
A majority of committee members also approved new measures under the Bill, which would see assisted dying available free on the NHS.
Ms Leadbeater said this would give choice to all but leading opponent Danny Kruger argued it fundamentally changes the principles on which the health service was founded.
The Conservative MP said the NHS would, if the Bill passes into law, become the 'national health and assisted suicide service' as he accused those behind it of taking a 'red pen to Bevan's legacy', referring to the NHS's chief architect Aneurin 'Nye' Bevan.
This exchange in the committee this morning goes to the heart of the Leadbeater Bill. A new clause, amending the 1946 Act, will change the NHS to the National Health and Assisted Suicide Service. And no, it's not just part of end-of-life care. pic.twitter.com/LoODMNQLMK
— Danny Kruger (@danny__kruger) March 25, 2025
The two new clauses impose a duty on a Secretary of State in England and give power to ministers in Wales, where health is devolved, to ensure the provision of voluntary assisted dying services.
Ms Leadbeater said it is 'crucial that the option of a voluntary assisted death remains part of a holistic approach to end-of-life care' and added that private provision should also be available.
She told MPs: 'NHS trusts and ICBs (integrated care boards) may, as they already do, use private providers in some circumstances.
'This provides flexibility, which is important, but chair, what matters is that the safeguards and protections in this Bill will apply no matter where the service is supplied.'
She added that the same requirements will apply to all medical practitioners that they 'cannot benefit financially or in any material way from the death of a person and can only receive reasonable remuneration for providing a service'.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Labour MP Kate Osborne faces inquiry by Commons expenses watchdog
Parliament's expenses watchdog has opened an investigation into Labour MP Kate Osborne. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) said it had opened an investigation into whether the Jarrow and Gateshead East MP had breached spending rules. Announcing the investigation on Tuesday, Ipsa said the investigation related to spending on travel and subsistence costs and 'miscellaneous costs and financial assistance'. It added: 'No further information will be published until the investigation has concluded.' Ms Osborne, 59, has been an MP since 2019 and was re-elected last year with a majority of 8,964. She is the second Labour MP to be investigated by Ipsa this year, after the watchdog opened an inquiry into spending by Tahir Ali in May. Mr Ali, the MP for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley, faces an investigation into spending on 'office costs, travel and accommodation'. Ms Osborne has been contacted for comment.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump Targets Corporate America to Achieve Economic and Foreign Policy Goals
(Bloomberg) -- He didn't campaign on it. It wasn't even broached during his first administration. He criticized his predecessor for it. Chicago Schools Seeks $1 Billion of Short-Term Debt as Cash Gone A Photographer's Pipe Dream: Capturing New York's Vast Water System A London Apartment Tower With Echoes of Victorian Rail and Ancient Rome Why New York City Has a Fleet of New EVs From a Dead Carmaker Princeton Plans New Budget Cuts as Pressure From Trump Builds But this month President Donald Trump made clear that he's willing to use the full force of the US government to directly intervene in corporate matters to achieve his economic and foreign policy goals. Trump, backed by his team of Wall Street financiers, took the unprecedented step of seeking to collect a portion of money generated from sales of AI chips to China by Nvidia Corp. and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. And in a move that could see the US government become Intel Corp.'s largest shareholder, the administration is said to be in talks for taking a 10% stake in the beleaguered chipmaker. Last month, the Pentagon also decided to take a $400 million preferred equity stake in a little-known rare earth mining company. It's a series of moves that has surprised Wall Street and Washington policy veterans, who privately and publicly acknowledged they've never seen anything like it in their decades-long careers. The actions, if successful, could leave private investors and average 401(k) savings holders enriched while catapulting US national security further ahead of China. But they're also risky bets that could end with taxpayer losses and distort markets in ways investors can't predict. 'I'm very concerned that we're going to have these rolling sectors where the president starts saying 'you have to pay us just to sell internationally,'' Lee Munson, the chief investment officer at Portfolio Wealth Advisors, with $390 million in assets under management, said. 'Where does this end? I don't even know how to buy companies right now that have exposure to China that have high-tech IP.' The Trump administration's direct involvement in corporate matters is becoming a marker of the president's second term. Trump, a self-described dealmaker, has a mixed track record of success yet has vowed to bring more of a business approach to governing in Washington. In addition to the Nvidia and AMD revenue promise and potential Intel investment stake, his administration secured the 'Golden Share' from Nippon Steel Corp., a Japanese steelmaker that gives Trump personal power to make decisions on United States Steel Corp. corporate decisions. In these cases, the administration is picking winners and losers, and risks undermining the free flow of capital. 'The Trump administration's focus on industries like steel, semiconductors, and critical minerals is not arbitrary – these sectors are critical to our national and economic security,' White House spokesman Kush Desai said in an emailed statement. 'Cooled inflation, trillions in new investments, historic trade deals, and hundreds of billions in tariff revenue prove how President Trump's hands-on leadership is paving the way towards a new Golden Age for America.' Trump surprised markets earlier this month when he announced Nvidia and AMD agreed to pay the US government 15% of their revenue from AI chip sales to China. The move rankled investors, trade experts, lawmakers and others who feared a much broader slippery slope in which the federal government could begin forcing pay-for-play scenarios in everything from trade negotiations to defense contracts. Word that the White House is contemplating using Chips Act money to take a direct stake in chip-maker Intel added to the uncertainty around changing norms between private sector companies and the US government. The move could provide a much-needed boost to Intel's ambitious plan for a sparkling new chips facility in Ohio, which is vital to rebuilding domestic chip production in the US but which has been delayed amid shrinking sales and mounting losses at the company. SoftBank Group Corp. agreed this week to buy $2 billion of Intel stock in a surprise deal. 'Chinese Model' In America's free market economy, the government typically doesn't buy stakes in companies. There are exceptions, of course, such as during the financial crisis of 2008-2009, when it stepped in to support major names like Citigroup Inc., American International Group Inc. and General Motors Co. While Intel has performance issues to grapple with, it isn't facing the imminent threat of collapse. That's in part why investors, lawmakers, national security experts and others interviewed repeatedly referred to 'uncertainty' and 'uncharted territory' when asked to contemplate the risks associated with Trump's new policies. 'It's state direction that we haven't had in the US, it's very much the Chinese model making its way into US government,' Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said. The Trump administration's approach to public companies in the first year of his second term is in some ways an evolution of the economic statecraft tools he deployed in his first four years as president. Back then he deployed trade levers that hadn't been used in years or decades, from Section 301 tariffs on entire countries, like China, to Section 232 tariffs on sectors like steel and automobiles. The policies weren't popular and they rattled markets, but supporters argued that the tariffs tamped down Chinese and other foreign products that flooded the US market and drove some American companies out of business. Trump has continued to push the boundaries of using novel tools in his second administration. 'What we see here is when it comes to big economic questions like tariffs and fees for exports and also the MP Materials deal, he is willing to push legal boundaries on big economic issues in a way that he wasn't in the first term,' said Peter Harrell, a nonresident scholar for the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Caitlin Legacki, a former Commerce Department official in the Biden administration, said an argument in favor of 'national champions' is understandable, however a 'lack of transparency' around the deals in concerning. 'Instead of making this a cause for national security or technological independence that people from both parties can rally around, it feels more like a shakedown,' she said. --With assistance from Josh Wingrove and Ryan Gould. Foreigners Are Buying US Homes Again While Americans Get Sidelined What Declining Cardboard Box Sales Tell Us About the US Economy Women's Earnings Never Really Recover After They Have Children Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates Yosemite Employee Fired After Flying Trans Pride Flag ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Targets Corporate America to Achieve Economic and Foreign Policy Goals
He didn't campaign on it. It wasn't even broached during his first administration. He criticized his predecessor for it. But this month President Donald Trump made clear that he's willing to use the full force of the US government to directly intervene in corporate matters to achieve his economic and foreign policy goals.