TV star Liz Carr to speak out against assisted dying ahead of Holyrood vote
Actor Liz Carr is to travel to Holyrood to urge MSPs to vote against 'dangerous' plans to legalise assisted dying.
Carr, who is best known for her role in the BBC crime drama Silent Witness, is also a disability rights campaigner and a member of the Not Dead Yet group, which is opposed to assisted dying.
She will speak at a rally outside the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday, as MSPs prepare to vote on a Bill brought forward by Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur which would allow terminally ill Scots to seek help to end their life.
Mr McArthur argues his Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill provides a 'compassionate choice' for those who could otherwise be faced with a painful death.
But Carr said: 'Liam McArthur's Bill is dangerous for older, ill and disabled people across Scotland — even more so than the Kim Leadbeater's Bill being considered in Westminster.'
Carr added: 'To qualify for assisted suicide under the Bill a person must have an 'advanced and progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unable to recover and that can reasonably be expected to cause their premature death'.
'As someone who as a teenager was told by doctors that I wouldn't live to be old because of my condition, this definition applies to me.'
She continued: 'The McArthur Bill is not just about terminal illness, it's about disabled people.
'It is not a limited or modest Bill, and disabled people across Scotland are right to be deeply concerned.'
Her comments came ahead of a rally by disabled people who are fearful of the impact the legislation could have on them, if it is passed.
Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy said: 'Disabled people, their organisations and their allies will come together to demonstrate to MSPs that they are not simply voting on the principle of a Bill, they are voting on whether it should be easier to get help to die than help to live.'
Ms Duncan-Glancy, who was the first permanent wheelchair user to be elected to Holyrood when she became an MSP in 2021, added: 'This is quite simply a matter of life and death.
'MSPs must think very carefully about the real-life consequences of their decision on this, and disabled people will be there to encourage them to vote against the Bill.'
Meanwhile, Marianne Scobie, depute chief executive of the Glasgow Disability Alliance, said they were 'urging MSPs to hear our voices and vote against the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill'.
Ms Scobie said: 'The Bill's definition of terminal illness is dangerously broad and would catch many disabled people in a societal context where we are at our most vulnerable.
'Disabled people already face multiple barriers and discrimination on a daily basis and our lives are endangered by the lack of equitable access to healthcare, pain management support and cancer screening programmes.
'A key concern for many disabled people is the very real potential for Liam McArthur's legislation to be widened and safeguards to be weakened or removed over time, as has happened in many other jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal.'
Dr Miro Griffiths, a spokesman for the Better Way campaign group, which opposes assisted dying, said: 'As a disabled person and academic who focuses on the inequalities my community face, I am fearful about the implications of an assisted suicide law.
'Legislating for this practice would send a regressive message that disabled people's lives are not worth living.
'Disabled people and others would inevitably choose to end their lives because they don't have access to support. This outcome is unconscionable.'
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
27 minutes ago
- The National
Why your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man gives you the ‘ick' factor
That shimmering street grid, and those sandstone bases of unbuilt skyscrapers, will host the most everyday superhero of the current Marvel Universe. Everyday, in every way. It's not just Peter Parker's tentative romance with Mary Jane Watson (and her variants), or his wracked grief on the deaths of his adoptive parents, or his humdrum job as a freelance photographer. But it's also his powers; they too partake of the everyday. In his earliest incarnation, Parker is bitten by a radioactive spider, escaped from an experiment. Spider-Man first appears in the nuclear-haunted, cold-warring mid-60s, where the lingering effects of radiation on babies and animals were well known. Not to mention the beginning of plausible genetic engineering. Watching the precursor to the forthcoming Glasgow-based movie, 2021's Spider-Man: No Way Home, it's notable that all the villains assembled – Doctor Octopus, Green Goblin, Sandman, Lizard, Electro – have gained their malevolent powers through exposure to radiation, or biological/cyborg experiment. Just like Spider-Man. READ MORE: 'Ludicrous': BBC bias claims reignite as majority of panellists back Labour Doth this 'good' mutant protest too much against the 'bad' ones? The citizens are consigned to the role of spectators (or squished collateral damage) as these super-humans fight for supremacy. No amount of Peter Parker homeliness – he is your 'friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man', after all, happiest when arresting street thugs – can hide his posthuman weirdery. No Way Home might be the eighth-biggest-grossing movie of all time, but it's lame in the way it resolves this tension – where body modification turns towards good or ill. Parker and friends test-tube up some remedies for the villains, transforming them back into their humdrum, benign human selves. But then Doctor Strange – played by a somnolent Benedict Cumberbatch – has to then 'magic' them back into the parallel universes they've come from. The current Spidey-verse – with a guileless Tom Holland in the title role – is, at this late stage in the Marvel franchise, a bewildering mix of superpowers. Under the techno-influence of Tony Stark, the old struggles with the Spidey costume – stitching it together, hauling it on, repairing rips – are now an automated swoosh from suit to suit. There's also a very funny sequence where previous Spider-Men from parallel universes (Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield) explore their web-making powers. Garfield and Holland have to keep refilling their cartridges, while Maguire produces it subcutaneously from his wrist (which was creator Stan Lee's original mutation). 'Does it come out anywhere else?' asks Holland guilelessly. This is a nod to the obvious metaphor: the yearning young adult Parker suddenly suffers a condition where white sticky fluid unpredictably erupts everywhere … The actors are given enough room to riff on it. So we're laughing, these days. But I don't think any amount of irony and eyebrow-raised referencing can reduce the essential strangeness of Spider-Man – and for that matter, X-Men, Iron Man, the Fantastic Four, Captain America, Black Widow, Ant-Man, I could go on. All of them are the victims of science and technology either gone wrong, or consciously applied to the body, resulting in imposed or desired superpowers. As the box office shows, the appetite is there for stories, however fantastic, of human biomodification. You could render them as giant compensation fantasies. We're coping with our everyday sense of bodily vulnerability to the outcomes of sci-tech, through entertainments that show us gaining power from it – not being polluted and made more fragile and dependent by it. Yet it strikes me that we are much more resistant to the transformations of bioscience than we are to the transformations of AI and automation. We consume all manner of creative narratives, both desirable and cautionary, about computers becoming conscious or purposeful – and it all seems more like a lubricant to the spread of AI in our lives than an inhibitor. When it comes to us and our bags of skin, however, we're just not as embracing of the radical bio-changes that the superheroes undergo, willingly or unwillingly. The safest vector is through disability or health. The pills and therapies that suppress appetite, attack viruses, enable pregnancies, and (who knows) slow down cell decay to prolong life. Even that avatar of techno-weirdness, Elon Musk, who wants to neurologically link brains and computers, does so first in service of the paralysed, giving them some much-needed agency and purchase in the material world. Yet we appear to have an unarticulated, deeply-set norm that kicks back against too much of this. The 'ick' factor is certainly present. Take the Enhanced Games that took place in Singapore the other week. Sportspersons competed in athletics which ignored the fuzzy line between legal performance-enhancing substances and illegal ones. But the games languished under waves of aversive, sometimes even revulsed press coverage. So we revel in the superheroic cavortings of cyborgs and mutants on our screens, while objecting to already finely-calibrated athletic bodies taking a few seconds off a track record, by expanding the pharmacopoeia of their drugs. I'm not complaining! Indeed, I'm desperately grateful that there seems to be some kind of natural, intuitive limit to the kinds of transformations we moderns of the 2020s are willing to undergo. Even the blockbuster entertainments are telling us something obvious, as the Earth is (yet again) threatened with total annihilation in their narratives. Which is that it ultimately, terminally matters how we humans consciously deploy our transforming powers in the world. I will admit to enjoying these bionic characters as modern mythological gods, cartoonishly laying out important dilemmas for us. However, I sometimes crave sci-fi tales in a much subtler register. Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go is interesting to set alongside these bombastic tales. In its way, it's hardly less monstrous. The whole society in this novel is stable, settled, orderly and utterly cruel: the institutionalised children in it are clones, being grown to adulthood so that they their organs can be harvested for clients. The supportive relationships that comprise much of the novel are to support the weakening young adults, as they are weakened by the surgeries they undergo. This is body modification, but all about submission to the process, accommodating its demands. It's far from radiation, gene therapy or prosthetics enabling you to leap tall buildings with a single bound. Bio-heroes in the blockbusters conduct their sparring in the public sphere, as if they're conducting an oblique argument about the society they're in. For No Way Home, they literally battle across the surface of a scaffolded Statue of Liberty. They're also constantly pursued by an Alex-Jones-like vlogger, casting Spidey as a public enemy. In Never Let Me Go, the bio-subjects are held in a pastoral enclosure, erased from the world that depends on their sacrifice. The crowds gawp at the superheroes: faced with Ishiguro's bureaucratic horror, the crowds avert their eyes. The superheroes at least ask: What happens when your body has power and potential, when what you can do with it amplifies your agency? Ishiguro asks: what happens when the body simply becomes somebody's property? The Spider-Man producer Amy Pascal says the new film will be about 'Peter Parker going to focus on being Spider-Man, because being Peter Parker was too hard'. Cute: his pursuit of Zendaya, as his girlfriend with a now wiped memory of him, will no doubt humanise the story. But Spider-Man – and we haven't even touched on arachnophobia (or is that arachnophilia?) – is properly odd, if you scrutinise him closely enough, and line him up with all his bionic pals. There are important tensions about humanity, technology and the future, hidden behind that bug-eyed mask.
Daily Mirror
31 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
TV teen who needed French polisher in Yellow Pages ad unrecognisable 34 years on
One of the best-remembered ads for the Yellow Pages phone directory featured a floppy-haired teenager waking up to the aftermath of party he'd thrown while his parents were away Before the rise of the internet, we had the Yellow Pages, a comprehensive directory of local businesses – from advice centres to zoos – all vying for your custom, packaged in a hefty, distinctively coloured phone book. In the 1990s, the Reading-based company became famous for its unforgettable TV adverts, each new release bringing a buzz of anticipation akin to the unveiling of a new John Lewis Christmas advert today. These TV commercials even turned their stars into temporary celebrities, long before the era of reality TV, and gave birth to several catchphrases. Anyone around at the time will easily remember the Yellow Pages ad featuring elderly man searching for a book titled Fly Fishing by J R Hartley, with the surprising twist that it was Mr Hartley himself seeking his old publication. There was also the cheeky young lad standing on a stack of Yellow Pages to sneak a kiss under the Christmas mistletoe. And in 2003, Cold Feet actor James Nesbitt was enlisted to rejuvenate the brand, with the actor channelling his character Adam's hapless persona from the show, using the Yellow Pages to navigate tricky situations. But one of the most memorable adverts, first aired in 1991, featured a shaggy-haired teenager waking up on his living room floor after hosting a house party while his parents were away. Venturing into a bedroom, he stumbles upon a stranger on the bed, exclaiming: "Wake up! My parents fly back today," as a small group hastily tidies up the house. Then after his abject horror at noticing a scratch on a wooden table, he turns to the reliable Yellow Pages to find a solution. "Hello, French polishers?" he enquires over the phone, adding: "It's just possible you could save my life." The scratch is skilfully polished away in the nick of time and everything seems fine, until the final moment when the unfortunate lad realises that someone has doodled a beard and glasses onto a woman on one of the family's treasured paintings. The teenager in the advert was portrayed by Nottingham actor Simon Schatzberger, who later played Adrian Mole in a stage production in London's West End, and has since appeared as a Woody Allen-esque character in a stand-up comedy show. Now aged 57, he's also had a stint as David Klarfeld on the BBC soap Doctors and made appearances in EastEnders as a Rabbi, both in December 2018 and again in January 2019. His other television roles include Band Of Brothers, Daniel Deronda and Father Brown. In 2019, Yellow Pages announced it would cease printing its iconic directories, after more than half a century. The final editions of the once-indispensable guide were delivered in Brighton, the city where the directory's original copies were distributed. It boasted 104 editions, each customised to specific areas of the UK, with nearly 23 million copies circulated each year. And in 2023, a perfume was launched that even smelled like Yellow Pages, proving the brand lives on... sort of.
The Herald Scotland
31 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Immigration warning over 'less than welcoming' statements
The tone of Sir Keir's remarks on May 12 was, as observed by Mr Sheerin and many others, surely something of a surprise. And it was unexpected even with an awareness - having covered this key issue closely over months and years - of Labour's developing and lamentable stance on immigration. The Prime Minister declared: 'Nations depend on rules – fair rules. Sometimes they're written down, often they're not, but either way, they give shape to our values. They guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to one another. Now, in a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.' The 'island of strangers' was a striking turn of phrase. Sir Keir went on: 'So when you have an immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse, that encourages some businesses to bring in lower-paid workers rather than invest in our young people, or simply one that is sold by politicians to the British people on an entirely false premise, then you're not championing growth, you're not championing justice, or however else people defend the status quo. You're actually contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart.' Maybe with the benefit of hindsight the Prime Minister's remarks, even though they could have been uttered just as easily by the Tory Brexiters, should not have been quite so much of a shock as they were. After all, Labour has embraced the key elements of the Conservatives' hard Brexit: loss of free movement of people between the UK and European Economic Area nations and the ending of the frictionless trade from which the country previously benefited enormously when it was part of the single market. Nevertheless, Sir Keir's tone was surely surprisingly dismal, even given all of this. Not only did we have the reference to 'an island of strangers' but also this declaration: 'This strategy will finally take back control of our borders and close the book on a squalid chapter for our politics, our economy, and our country.' What seemed clear from Sir Keir's utterings was that populism most certainly did not end with the exit of Boris Johnson or Rishi Sunak from the prime minister post. Sir Keir's tone contrasted so starkly with Mr Sheerin's reasoned appraisal of the Prime Minister's remarks and Labour's plans on immigration. We had this from Sir Keir: 'We do have to ask why parts of our economy seem almost addicted to importing cheap labour rather than investing in the skills of people who are here and want a good job in their community. Sectors like engineering, where visas have rocketed while apprenticeships have plummeted.' You would imagine Mr Sheerin, as a veteran of the engineering sector, knows a lot more about the specifics than Sir Keir. And it is worth observing the Scottish Engineering chief executive is passionate about people in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK being trained as engineers. He would love to see the skills shortages which are posing such a challenge to member companies of Scottish Engineering and others in the sector solved. Mr Sheerin is not a politician - just someone with deep knowledge of the Scottish engineering sector. So what did the Scottish Engineering chief have to say in his quarterly report published on Friday? Read more He declared that he found the UK Government's 'latest pronouncements on immigration disappointing', highlighting the detrimental impact on companies of 'statements that feel less than welcoming'. Mr Sheerin hammered home his view that raising minimum qualification levels from Higher equivalents to degree level would 'leave out the skilled trades and crafts roles where we are already in shortest supply: welders, fabricators, electricians, pipefitters, CNC (computer numerical control) machinists to name a few'. That is surely a crucial point. And it is worth emphasising Mr Sheerin's observation that people skilled in these roles are 'already in shortest supply'. Mr Sheerin also noted: 'The shortening of the graduate visa scheme reducing the right to work from two years to 18 months after graduating will not only hit our education sector but also reduce the attractiveness of the scheme for companies who will have a shorter timeline to decide whether to invest in the process to extend the visa of the employee.' This is another good point. And the Scottish Engineering chief executive declared: 'Whilst I recognise that this [immigration] is a contentious political issue across the UK for a whole range of reasons, in engineering and manufacturing in Scotland the reality is that immigration is a vital source of skills and experience that cannot be replaced overnight. These skills levels take years to build - and we should be building them - but closing off the supply before putting in place the actions to do that is another example of an action that will challenge the stated ambition of growing our economy.' The time horizon with regard to building skills levels is important. It might not chime with that of politicians such as Sir Keir, who seems at pains to bang the drum on immigration as Nigel Farage's Reform UK makes a big noise on this front. However, it is a simple factual point that engineering skills do take years to build. Mr Sheerin declared that a frustration for him in Labour's immigration pronouncements was that 'whereas there is considerable detail on how we plan to restrict and close this supply of skills, on the laudable stated aim that we will replace the loss with trained or upskilled UK-born workers, the detail is missing on how that will be achieved'. He added: 'And there is no detail that recognises that engineering skills take between four and six years to get to a starting level of competency. It does not seem an unreasonable request for the get-well plan to carry at least the same level of detail as the take-it-away plan.' This seems like an absolutely fair summation of the problems with Labour's populist immigration proposals. If you were asked to choose whether you think it is Sir Keir or Mr Sheerin who is on the money in relation to immigration policy and its effect on engineering and the broader economy, it would surely be the easiest of questions to answer, any day of the week.
