
EXCLUSIVE Doctors told my Nana she had a short while left. They were wrong. She defied the odds and lived for almost a decade. That's why I'll be voting AGAINST the assisted dying bill: ROBERT JENRICK
Robert Jenrick has made an emotional appeal against assisted dying, as MPs prepare for a momentous vote on whether to let the terminally ill end their own lives.
Writing for the Daily Mail below, Mr Jenrick reveals how he helped look after his grandmother, Dorothy, as a teenage boy – and how she continued to bring joy to the family as she defied a terminal diagnosis for nearly a decade.
The Shadow Justice Secretary says the prospect of legalising assisted dying 'fills me with dread', adding: 'My Nana felt like she was a burden. I know how much she hated the indignity she felt at having to ask my Mum or us to help her with basic needs.
'People like her – and there are many such people – may consider an assisted death as another act of kindness to us. How wrong they would be.'
He goes on: 'Our society pays little regard to end of life care. We need to do much more as a country to help the elderly, like my Nana, in their final years.
'But my experience has taught me that there can be dignity in death, and that even in someone's twilight years, there is joy to be extracted from life.
'So I'll be voting No. And as I do so, I'll be thinking of my great pal – my Nana, Dorothy.'
The appeal comes as MPs prepare for a Commons showdown over the contentious issue tomorrow.
MPs will hold a final vote tomorrow afternoon on whether to press ahead with the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would make it legal to help someone end their own life in certain circumstances for the first time.
It will apply only to those with a terminal illness and a diagnosis giving them fewer than six months to live, although critics warn it could be 'the thin end of the wedge'.
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater said she was confident the Bill would pass. But campaigners opposed to the legislation last night said the vote was on a 'knife-edge'.
The Bill cleared its first Commons hurdle in November with a comfortable majority of 55 votes. But some MPs have suggested they will switch their votes today or abstain.
The original legislation has now been amended dozens of times.
Ms Leadbeater herself has tabled a further 37, mostly technical amendments to be considered today, while opponents will launch a last-ditch bid to tighten up the Bill, including by barring its use by people suffering from anorexia.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch labelled it a 'bad bill' that will not deliver and urged Conservative MPs to follow suit.
'This has been a free vote. I'm somebody who has been previously supportive of assisted suicide,' Mrs Badenoch said.
'[But] this Bill is a bad Bill. It is not going to deliver. It has not been done properly.
'This is not how we should put through legislation like this. I don't believe that the NHS and other services are ready to carry out assisted suicide, so I'll be voting no, and I hope as many Conservative MPs as possible will be supporting me in that.'
Former Labour frontbencher Dan Carden became the latest to say he will vote against the Bill after previously abstaining.
Mr Carden, leader of the Blue Labour group of MPs, told the Guardian that 'legalising assisted suicide will normalise the choice of death over life, care, respect and love'.
He added: 'I genuinely fear the legislation will take us in the wrong direction. The values of family, social bonds, responsibilities, time and community will be diminished, with isolation, atomisation and individualism winning again.'
Tory sources said that Rishi Sunak, who backed the Bill at its first stage, is likely to be one of many MPs who decide to miss tomorrow's vote.
Downing Street would not say whether Keir Starmer, who backs the principle of assisted dying, will vote.
One government insider described the legislation, which has been introduced as a private member's bill, as 'a mess'.
'Even among people who support assisted dying, there are a lot who are not sure this was the best way of going about it,' the source said. 'We would have been better to have let a Royal Commission look at it first.'
Supporters of the Bill insist they have put rigorous safeguards in place to prevent vulnerable people being coerced into ending their lives early. Anyone found to have pressured someone to kill themselves could face up to 14 years in prison.
But critics warn the protections are too weak – and point to the decision to drop the requirement for all applications to be considered by a High Court judge. The key safeguard was abandoned following warnings it would place too much pressure on court time. Instead, applications will now be considered by a three-person panel featuring a senior legal figure, a psychiatrist and a social worker.
A government impact assessment found that within a decade the legislation would see 4,500 people a year end their lives early. It forecast that the premature deaths would save the NHS almost £60million a year in 'unutilised healthcare'.
The Government is formally 'neutral' on the issue. Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner are among senior members of the Cabinet who voted against the legislation in November, while Sir Keir and other senior figures such as Rachel Reeves and Yvette Cooper voted in favour.
The Government has said it will implement the Bill if it is eventually passed by Parliament. But ministers forced Ms Leadbeater to accept an implementation period of up to four years because of concerns it will prove difficult in practice.
My Nana felt like she was a burden. People like her may consider an assisted death as an act of kindness to us... how wrong they would be
By Robert Jenrick
It was never the plan for my Nana, Dorothy, to live with us. She'd moved from Liverpool to a sheltered flat near our home outside of Wolverhampton to be close to Mum and Dad.
But her terminal emphysema made that impossible at times. It was a dreadful thing, leaving her constantly struggling to breathe, reliant on powerful inhalers and later oxygen canisters.
So, after a hospital stay, when I was a teenager, she came to our house to recuperate for 'a few weeks'. She ended up staying for years.
Her mind remained razor sharp even to the end, but her body gave up. The condition left her barely able to walk down a corridor or across a room. She was in considerable discomfort and often bedbound.
Throughout all that, though, her dignity was astonishing. Immaculately turned out. Neatly dressed. Hair coiffed. Every single day.
First diagnosed with emphysema, then cancer, doctors gave her a short while to live. They were wrong. She defied the odds and lived for almost a decade.
Throughout, my Mum primarily, but also my Dad, my sister and I were her carers. Fetching prescriptions, changing beds, running her to doctors' appointments. There was nothing by way of help. In fact, the day my grandmother died, my Mum came home to a message from the council saying that her condition was not yet serious enough to warrant their support.
After Nana became seriously unwell, my mother was loath to leave her side.
Looking back, Mum showed a saintlike devotion. She put her whole life on hold for years, as so many carers across the country do. She received no recompense, no reward. This was a duty of love.
A multi-generational household has its ups and downs. Teenagers and octogenarians aren't always natural housemates. She found our noise, robust family debates and occasional parties difficult and wasn't shy about saying so. With only one television, battles over my desire to watch teenage comedies and her desire to watch Emmerdale or Corrie raged for years.
But there were many happy moments too. Long discussions about the past, the news, and politics, as we sat completing the Daily Mail crossword every day. She encouraged me to go to university and make the most of the opportunities she missed leaving school at 13.
Watching her deteriorate was heartbreaking. It affected us all. There was something particularly tragic about someone so sharp, so witty, so aware of the world, stuck in a failing body.
Increasingly, she felt a burden. She prized what remained of her independence and hated making a fuss. None of this came easily to her. In her youth, she'd done remarkable things like serving as a volunteer fire warden during the Blitz around St Paul's Cathedral. She'd known the tough times and faced them all with a quiet stoicism.
The days before she died were terrible to watch. By then, each breath had become painful, and talking a struggle. It hurts beyond words to see someone you love in that state.
I'll always remember the last time we saw each other. I went to see her in hospital. I held her hand and we spoke a little. I kissed her cheek as I left. She whispered, 'we've been great pals, haven't we?' We had.
Tomorrow, I'll cast my vote on the Assisted Dying Bill.
The legislation lacks basic safeguards. It would allow patients with anorexia to end their life without telling their families. The representative bodies of Pathologists, Psychiatrists, and Palliative doctors all oppose it. Our courts are bound, under human rights challenges, to expand eligibility yet further.
The safeguards our courts were supposed to provide when the Bill was first proposed, and which I warned at the time were utterly impractical to deliver, have been stripped out altogether.
Then there is the matter of how hard it is to predict when someone might die. This law is meant to only apply to those with less than six months less to live. But speak to any doctor and they'll tell you just how hard that is to predict.
The doctors told my Nana that she had just a short while left. They were wrong, like they are in many cases. She lived for almost a decade until her death at the grand old age of 94. With assisted dying legalised, inevitable mistakes like this would be too terrible to contemplate.
But for me, it's the examples around the world where assisted dying is legal that prove it's a bad idea. In Oregon, under 30 per cent of the patients dying by assisted dying do so because they're in physical pain. The overwhelming majority die because they fear 'losing autonomy' or feel a 'burden on family, friends and caregivers.' These numbers are the same just about everywhere data is collected.
That fills me with dread. My Nana felt like she was a burden. I know how much she hated the indignity she felt at having to ask my Mum or us to help her with basic needs. People like her, and there are many such people, may consider an assisted death as another act of kindness to us. How wrong they would be.
It's easy to make laws that work for 80 per cent of people. It's very hard to make them work for everyone. It's Parliament's role to represent that minority, but the Assisted Dying Bill leaves them exposed.
There will be people – we all know them in our lives – who are shy, who have low self-esteem, who have demons within them who will feel societal pressure to end their life early. I know plenty of these people. They are often poor. They are vulnerable. They are lonely.
Parliament must be their protector. But this Bill fails to uphold that duty. Thousands of people will lose months, if not years, of their life to avoid causing hassle for their family. Thousands more will be haunted by the thought of whether they should do so too. If it wasn't obvious from the data, we know it instinctively.
Our society pays little regard to end of life care. We need to do much more as a country to help the elderly, like my Nana, in their final years. But my experience has taught me that there can be dignity in death, and that even in someone's twilight years, there is joy to be extracted from life.
So tomorrow, I'll be voting no. And, as I do so, I'll be thinking of my great pal – my Nana, Dorothy.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Times
an hour ago
- Times
Iran's ‘propagandist-in-chief' to speak at Scottish mosque
Iran's 'propagandist-in-chief' is scheduled to give an address at a Scottish mosque, it has emerged, as the tensions between the Islamic Republic and Israel continue to escalate. Seyed Hashem Moosavi, the UK representative of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, is due to appear at the al-Mahdi Islamic Centre in Glasgow's southside on Friday. The mosque has been linked to the regime in Tehran, including displaying the Iranian flag and images of its leaders: Ayatollah Khomeini, who proclaimed a death sentence on the British author Salman Rushdie, and his successor Khamenei, who praised Hamas 'resistance fighters' after the October 7 atrocities in Israel. The Times previously revealed the mosque has received grants worth almost £400,000 from the Scottish government. Moosavi is described on adverts for the Glasgow event as a special guest speaker. It has been organised to celebrate Eid al-Ghadir and Mubahala, two significant dates in the Shia Islamic calendar.


Powys County Times
an hour ago
- Powys County Times
Donald Trump delays decision on Iran strikes as Keir Starmer calls for restraint
Donald Trump has delayed a decision on whether to join Israeli attacks on Iran as Sir Keir Starmer continues to urge restraint in the Middle East. The US president said he was still hopeful of reaching a negotiated solution with Tehran and would decide on military action within two weeks, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Thursday. Quoting a message from the president, Ms Leavitt said: 'Based on the fact that there is a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision on whether or not to go within the next two weeks.' On Wednesday, Mr Trump said he 'may' join Israeli strikes against Iran and its nuclear programme, but added: 'I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.' On Thursday, the Prime Minister had urged him to step back from military action, saying there was a 'real risk of escalation'. Sir Keir said there had been 'several rounds of discussions with the US' and 'that, to me, is the way to resolve this issue'. Foreign Secretary David Lammy took the UK's plea for de-escalation to Washington, where he was expected to meet Mr Trump's top diplomat Marco Rubio on Thursday evening. Mr Lammy's meeting comes amid speculation that US involvement could require using the UK-controlled Diego Garcia base in the Chagos Islands. The B-2 stealth bombers based there are capable of carrying specialised 'bunker buster' bombs which could be used against Iran's underground nuclear facility at Fordo. Attorney General Lord Hermer is reported to have raised legal concerns about any British involvement in the conflict beyond defending its allies, which could limit the extent of any support for the US if Mr Trump decides to act militarily. Sir Keir has declined to comment on advice from Lord Hermer, but said the 'principle, the driving intent', was 'de-escalation'. It remains unclear whether the UK would join any US military action. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said she would 'in principle' support the US using Diego Garcia to strike Iran, while her shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel said the party would support UK involvement if it was deemed necessary. But Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey called on the Government to publish Lord Hermer's advice, saying: 'The last thing we need is for the UK to be dragged into another illegal war in the Middle East by the US.' Meanwhile, Israel and Iran continued to exchange fire, with the Israeli defence minister directly threatening the Iranian supreme leader after an attack damaged a major hospital in Tel Aviv. Israel Katz said Ayatollah Ali Khamenei 'should not continue to exist' if the military was to 'achieve all of its goals'. Israel also continued to attack Iran, striking the country's Arak heavy water reactor, part of Tehran's nuclear programme. Iran has insisted its nuclear programme is peaceful, but it is the only non-nuclear-armed state to enrich uranium up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90% and far above the levels required for power stations. Amid the conflict, 22,000 tourists are seeking evacuation flights from Israel, according to the country's tourism ministry. The ministry's director-general, Danny Shachar, said the Israeli government was working to co-ordinate flights as part of its 'safe return' programme, originally intended for Israelis returning to the country from elsewhere. The UK Government has not said how many British nationals are in Israel, but has urged those in the country to register their presence with the embassy. Although the Foreign Office advises against all travel to Israel and has evacuated the family members of embassy staff, it has not advised Britons to leave the country.


Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Diplomacy to end Israel-Iran conflict picks up pace - but what is its chance of success?
Diplomacy to prevent the conflict between Israel and Iran spiralling further out of control is picking up pace with the UK at its centre. British Foreign Secretary David Lammy has met with his US counterpart Marco Rubio and President Trump's chief negotiator Steve Witkoff in Washington, and flies next to Geneva. Sources close to the talks say the meeting in the US capital was positive and the Americans are seeking a diplomatic solution while retaining military action as very much an option "on the table". Mr Lammy flies to meet with Iran's foreign minister Abbas Aragchi and their French and German counterparts in Geneva on Friday. He will be taking with him a message to the Iranians from the Trump administration. Their response could be crucial in what happens next in a conflict that threatens to escalate, engulfing the region. 4:22 Israel is not involved in the talks. Israelis say Iran cannot be trusted and do not want their stunning military progress jeopardised by weeks of delaying diplomacy, fearing the Iranians will play for time. US President Donald Trump though seems willing to give the talks more time, possibly as much as two weeks before taking military action if it fails. 0:40 The talks will focus on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons programme and the issue of uranium enrichment. Iran has been enriching to levels that can only be used for military purposes while claiming to do so for civilian reasons. Israel and America both believe Iran cannot be trusted to enrich uranium for any purposes. But if Iran can be persuaded to give up its enrichment programme and verifiably guarantee its nuclear project can only be used for civilian purposes, a deal might be possible. That is a big if. Iran has long defended its right to enrich uranium. Israel will need a lot of persuading to call off its military offensive and if President Trump remains unconvinced by the diplomacy too, escalation including US military action seems at this stage hard to avoid.