TV doctor Hilary Jones says he would help terminally ill to die if law changed
The GP, often seen on ITV's Good Morning Britain and the Lorraine show, said medicine will go 'back to the Dark Ages' if proposed legislation being considered at Westminster is voted down.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will return to the House of Commons for debate on Friday, with MPs expected to consider further amendments.
In its current form the Bill, which applies only to England and Wales, would mean terminally ill adults with only six months left to live could apply for assistance to end their lives, with approval needed from two doctors and the expert panel.
Last month, MPs approved a change in the Bill to ensure no medics would be obliged to take part in assisted dying.
Doctors already had an opt-out but the new clause extends that to anyone, including pharmacists and social care workers.
Dr Jones, in an interview with the PA news agency, said medics are 'looking over their shoulders because of the legal repercussions of the law' as it stands.
Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years.
Asked about the significance if the law does change, Dr Jones told PA: 'It will relieve healthcare professionals who deal with terminal illness.
'There are wonderful people who are caring and compassionate, who just live in fear of their actions being misinterpreted, of being accused of wrongdoing, and because of that fear, people at the end of life are often undertreated.
'People are looking over their shoulder because of the medications they're using or the doses they're using, it means that patients aren't getting the best palliative care that they could have.
'And I think the Bill, if it passes, will alleviate a great deal of that, and put people's minds at rest that they're not going to suffer unnecessarily at the end of life.'
Ahead of last month's Commons debate on the Bill, two royal medical colleges raised concerns over the proposed legislation.
The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) said it believes there are 'concerning deficiencies', while the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) said it has 'serious concerns' and cannot support the Bill.
Dr Jones, who has been practising medicine for more than 45 years and spent time working on cancer wards during his career, said he has 'always supported it (assisted dying)'.
He added: 'I've always felt it is the most humane, kind and compassionate thing that relatives and doctors can provide, knowing that that person's wishes are respected and known, that there is full mental capacity and that they're surrounded by love.
'And for me, it's always been very clear.'
Asked if, were the law to change, he would be content to help someone who had chosen assisted dying at the end of their life, he said: 'Absolutely, if I know the patient, I know what their wishes are, I see them suffering, and there's nothing more I can do to help their suffering then, absolutely, I would hold their hand and help them achieve what they want to achieve.'
Some of the Bill's opponents have urged MPs to focus on improving end-of-life care rather than legislating for assisted dying.
But Dr Jones said his mother, who was a nurse and died 'suffering unnecessarily' despite the 'best possible palliative care' would be 'proud of me speaking on this subject now, in the way I am'.
He told of his respect for people's 'religious beliefs, cultural beliefs and personal feelings' in being opposed to assisted dying but insisted it should be an area of choice.
He said: 'The bottom line is that I think it's the patient's individual choice. I think we should respect the right of the individual to choose what they want.
'This is not a mandatory thing. This is not being imposed on anybody.
'And I think people should have the individual right to make a decision about how they end their life if they've got a terminal illness where there's no prospect of cure and they're suffering and they fear an undignified death.'
Asked about the prospect of the Bill being voted down by MPs, Dr Jones said: 'We would be back to square one, back to the Dark Ages, in my opinion, medically, and that would be a shame.
'I don't think we would be advancing medicine if the Bill is not passed.'
Our Duty Of Care, a group of healthcare professionals campaigning against a change in the law, said the question must be whether someone is making a 'true choice' if they apply for assisted dying.
Dr Gillian Wright, a spokesperson for the group, said: 'If someone has not had access to palliative care, psychological support or social care, then are they making a true choice?'
'At a time when the NHS is on its knees, when palliative are social care are struggling and our amazing hospices are having to close beds and cut services because of lack of money, as someone who has cared for people at the end of life, I would urge MPs to vote against this Bill but instead invest in excellent specialist palliative care, social care and psychological support.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
British photographer hit by non-lethal bullets during LA protests
He told the PA news agency: 'My initial concern was, were they firing live rounds? 'Some of the protesters came and helped me, and they ended up carrying me, and I noticed that there was blood pouring down my leg.' He was treated by a medic who urged him to go to hospital. At one point, Mr Stern says he passed out from the pain. He is now recovering at Long Beach Memorial Medical Centre following emergency surgery. Protesters throw objects to the police vehicles on a Freeway near the Metropolitan Detention Centre in downtown Los Angeles (Ethan Swope/AP) Mr Stern, who emigrated to the US in 2007, said he typically makes himself 'as visible as possible' while working in hostile situations. 'That way you're less likely to get hit because they know you're media,' he said. It is the second incident of its kind for Mr Stern, who said he sustained 'substantial' bruising after being hit by another live round during the George Floyd protests in 2020. 'The communities in LA are very tight and very close-knit,' Mr Stern said. 'So an outside organisation like Ice coming in and removing – whatever you want to call it, removing, kidnapping, abducting people from the community – is not going to go down well at all.' It comes after US President Donald Trump announced plans to deploy 2,000 National Guard troops to California to quell the protests, which began on Friday in downtown LA before spreading. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the move was 'essential to halting and reversing the invasion of illegal criminals into the United States'. The decision drew sharp criticism from Democratic politicians, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, who called the move 'purposefully inflammatory'. Demonstrators have been protesting the Trump administration's immigration raids, which last month aimed to detain as many as 3,000 people per day. Despite his injury, Mr Stern says he is eager to return to work. 'I intend, as soon as I am well enough, to get back out there,' he said. 'This is too important and it needs documenting.'
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The radio debut of the House of Commons: ‘there could be a long-running series here' – archive, 1975
Permanent radio broadcasts from the House of Commons began on 3 April 1978, and from the House of Lords on 4 April. Television broadcasts began on 21 November 1989. 10 June 1975 Ed Boyle, the commercial radio commentator for the first broadcast of parliament, yesterday spent two hours cooped up in a tiny glass box at a temperature of nearly 90 degrees, wearing a jacket, tie, and buttoned up collar, suffering from a particularly ferocious type of dysentery which has already brought his weight down to eight stone. Just to add a touch of challenge to the job, he was operating a new type of microphone kindly supplied by the BBC with operating instructions entirely in Japanese. In spite of this, Mr Boyle and his BBC colleague, David Holmes, who were trapped together in the same tiny glass box, managed somehow to give composed and informative account of the proceedings. Mr Holmes admitted afterwards that the heat had been so great that at times he had thought he would not be able to carry on, and though listeners may have noticed his voice fading occasionally, he always remained strikingly coherent and apparently in command. Mr Boyle now intends to make a few swift changes to make life slightly more bearable. Apart from sartorial changes to Bermuda shorts, for himself, he plans to make commentating easier by fading out some members when the discussion gets too technical. 'Some of the questions are really on very minor and erudite issues, and I guess the MPs won't mind if we turn them down occasionally so as to explain to the listeners what is happening.' Yesterday the two broadcasters were blessed by a good chunk of pungent topical debates, with Tony Benn using industry questions as the chance to prove himself a good Euro-democrat, and with splendid quotations like: 'If the opposition wants any head on a charger, the leader of the Conservative party will have to be a lot more seductive as a Salome than she has been so far.' At the same time, there were highly complex questions about, for example, the funding of the new pod for the stretched version of the Rolls-Royce RB 211 – a matter of great importance, but one which cannot be explained in the few seconds between question and answer. Both commentators had to trim down their remarks to within a second or so either way: Mr Holmes reckoned that if he did not spot immediately whether the speaker was calling an MP for a supplementary or for the next question on the order paper, he would lose two of the four or five vital seconds of explaining time. Time was so tight that Mr Boyle had to make a definite policy decision to give the first name of each MP as well as his surname and party. Often their time was so limited they could only say: 'This is a question about Europe' or, 'This is about British Leyland.' Mr Holmes hopes to grab a few more seconds of talking time while MPs are laughing and cheering between answers. But both men were pleased with the way things had gone, and came out of the box easier in mind if not in body than they had been when they went in. 'What's encouraging is that it looks as if we can do a proper job without the house having to change its way of going about business or even the tempo of its debates, so no one need feel that we are interfering in any way,' said Mr Holmes. The commercial company plans to use more material than the BBC will use, with prime minister's questions live every Tuesday and Thursday, plus special debates. It will also have an hour of extracts and highlights each morning – twice as long as the BBC – with an instant feedback service from a panel of MPs who took part in the debate; and possibly a Saturday morning edition giving chunks of the week's committees. Val Arnold-Forster, our radio critic, adds: It was a lucky day for broadcasters, according to David Holmes at the end of the transmission – audibly breathing a sigh of relief. It was too, it was a well or luckily chosen parliamentary day. At first, both Holmes and his opposite number, Ed Boyle of IRN, seemed to feel a trifle defensive about parliament. Well they might, for BBC listeners anyway missed not only some of Woman's Hour and a play, but since political events always seem to invade children's entertainment, they also missed Listen with Mother. Before the actual live broadcast started, both political editors showed us round like keen members of a parent-teachers association displaying their school: eager to tell us about the hallowed tradition, the problems that the whole institution had in a changing society, and the usefulness of the work done. The leader of the house, Edward Short, appeared on both channels in his headmasterly capacity to say that this was a particularly noisy House of Commons, but he hoped that the MPs would be on their best behaviour. A bit unruly, he thought, and not only the MPs either. There would have been more room, said Mr Short, in the tiny broadcaster's box if IRN and BBC had done the decent thing and agreed to a joint transmission. Nobody need have worried: from the moment question time started we were in capable hands. Both David Holmes and Ed Boyle chipped into the debate sotto voce, to identify and give party allegiances and explanations. Both tried valiantly to feed the listener with the details that make the House of Commons come alive. 'Mr Bidwell, chairman of the Tribune Group … Mr Denis Skinner, always a lively performer … Mr Benn is smiling to himself.' But they need not really have bothered: the proceedings were jolly enough. For those of us used to hearing politicians debating cautiously in front of untried audiences or answering laboured questions and phone-ins, it was an entertaining experience to hear such skilful parliamentary technicians as Harold Wilson and Tony Benn, parrying questions, riposting, joking, and scolding. The jokes were not always very good, but that's true of other radio comedians. Perhaps the laughter and applause sometimes seemed excessive but the barbed retorts were well placed and, as in other radio shows, what seemed like impromptu repartee must have been rehearsed, if only in the bath. 'I do not require lessons in political morality from an honourable member who regularly signs the oath of allegiance and snipes continually at the royal family,' snapped Tony Benn to Willie Hamilton. The uproar which worried Edward Short was cheerful mostly. The general cosiness, which came through strikingly as everyone complimented everyone else on performances in the referendum debate, seemed as easy to grasp as the Archers: we could become as familiar with William Whitelaw's idiosyncrasies as Walter Gabriel's. Final verdict: early days yet, but there could be a compulsive, long-running series here.
Wales Online
2 hours ago
- Wales Online
GMB doctor Hilary Jones says he would help people to end their lives
GMB doctor Hilary Jones says he would help people to end their lives The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will return to the House of Commons for debate on Friday Dr Hilary Jones attend the Good Morning Britain Health Star Awards (Image: 2017 Mike Marsland ) TV doctor Hilary Jones has described assisted dying for the terminally ill as 'kind and compassionate', adding that he would help a patient to end their life if the law was changed. The GP, often seen on ITV's Good Morning Britain and the Lorraine show, said medicine will go 'back to the Dark Ages' if proposed legislation being considered at Westminster is voted down. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will return to the House of Commons for debate on Friday, with MPs expected to consider further amendments. In its current form the Bill, which applies only to England and Wales, would mean terminally ill adults with only six months left to live could apply for assistance to end their lives, with approval needed from two doctors and the expert panel. Last month, MPs approved a change in the Bill to ensure no medics would be obliged to take part in assisted dying. Doctors already had an opt-out but the new clause extends that to anyone, including pharmacists and social care workers. Dr Jones, in an interview with the PA news agency, said medics are 'looking over their shoulders because of the legal repercussions of the law' as it stands. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Asked about the significance if the law does change, Dr Jones told PA: 'It will relieve healthcare professionals who deal with terminal illness. There are wonderful people who are caring and compassionate, who just live in fear of their actions being misinterpreted, of being accused of wrongdoing, and because of that fear, people at the end of life are often undertreated. 'People are looking over their shoulder because of the medications they're using or the doses they're using, it means that patients aren't getting the best palliative care that they could have. And I think the Bill, if it passes, will alleviate a great deal of that, and put people's minds at rest that they're not going to suffer unnecessarily at the end of life.' Article continues below Ahead of last month's Commons debate on the Bill, two royal medical colleges raised concerns over the proposed legislation. The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) said it believes there are 'concerning deficiencies', while the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) said it has 'serious concerns' and cannot support the Bill. Dr Jones, who has been practising medicine for more than 45 years and spent time working on cancer wards during his career, said he has 'always supported it (assisted dying)'. He added: 'I've always felt it is the most humane, kind and compassionate thing that relatives and doctors can provide, knowing that that person's wishes are respected and known, that there is full mental capacity and that they're surrounded by love. 'And for me, it's always been very clear.' Asked if, were the law to change, he would be content to help someone who had chosen assisted dying at the end of their life, he said: 'Absolutely, if I know the patient, I know what their wishes are, I see them suffering, and there's nothing more I can do to help their suffering then, absolutely, I would hold their hand and help them achieve what they want to achieve.' Some of the Bill's opponents have urged MPs to focus on improving end-of-life care rather than legislating for assisted dying. But Dr Jones said his mother, who was a nurse and died 'suffering unnecessarily' despite the 'best possible palliative care' would be 'proud of me speaking on this subject now, in the way I am'. He told of his respect for people's 'religious beliefs, cultural beliefs and personal feelings' in being opposed to assisted dying but insisted it should be an area of choice. He said: 'The bottom line is that I think it's the patient's individual choice. I think we should respect the right of the individual to choose what they want. 'This is not a mandatory thing. This is not being imposed on anybody. And I think people should have the individual right to make a decision about how they end their life if they've got a terminal illness where there's no prospect of cure and they're suffering and they fear an undignified death.' Asked about the prospect of the Bill being voted down by MPs, Dr Jones said: 'We would be back to square one, back to the Dark Ages, in my opinion, medically, and that would be a shame. 'I don't think we would be advancing medicine if the Bill is not passed.' Our Duty Of Care, a group of healthcare professionals campaigning against a change in the law, said the question must be whether someone is making a 'true choice' if they apply for assisted dying. Article continues below Dr Gillian Wright, a spokesperson for the group, said: 'If someone has not had access to palliative care, psychological support or social care, then are they making a true choice?' 'At a time when the NHS is on its knees, when palliative are social care are struggling and our amazing hospices are having to close beds and cut services because of lack of money, as someone who has cared for people at the end of life, I would urge MPs to vote against this Bill but instead invest in excellent specialist palliative care, social care and psychological support.'
