
Anorexia sufferers could access assisted dying after MPs refuse to close Bill loophole
Anorexia sufferers could access assisted dying after MPs refused to close a loophole in Kim Leadbeater's Bill, charities have warned.
Proposals that would have prevented people with the condition from being able to access assisted dying 'as a result of stopping eating or drinking' were rejected by MPs scrutinising the proposed legislation on Tuesday.
Eating disorder charities and campaigners said they were 'extremely disappointed' by the decision and warned that assisted dying laws in other countries had been used by women with eating disorders.
Ms Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill seeks to enable those with six months to live to receive medical assistance to end their lives.
As the Bill enters the committee stage, the fear that the law could wrongly allow anorexia patients to qualify as a result of malnutrition has emerged as a key issue.
Naz Shah, a Labour MP, on Tuesday proposed clarifying the Bill to specify that someone who 'would not otherwise' qualify as terminally ill 'shall not be considered to meet those requirements as a result of stopping eating or drinking.'
She told the committee: 'If we wish to protect people with anorexia and other eating disorders, we must rewrite this Bill...
'I must underline, this is not a hypothetical point. It is not some clever objection that has been dreamed up without reference to the real world. It has actually happened. It has happened not once, but dozens of times in countries that have assisted dying.'
Ahead of Tuesday's session, MPs received a letter signed by 34 representatives from leading eating disorder charities, urging them to support Ms Shah's amendment. However, the proposed change was rejected by 15 votes to eight.
Chelsea Roff, a researcher and founder of Eat Breathe Thrive, a US charity, told The Telegraph: 'We are extremely disappointed that the committee has chosen not to close the loopholes in this Bill that put people with anorexia at risk.'
Ms Roff, who gave oral evidence to MPs on the committee last month, said her own research had found that at least 60 patients had accessed assisted dying because of anorexia in jurisdictions where it is already legal.
She said: 'The international evidence is clear – assisted dying laws have already been exploited to help young women with eating disorders die by assisted death in Oregon, California, and Colorado. Even when presented with that evidence, some members of the committee have chosen to ignore it.
'The Bill clearly states that a person cannot qualify as terminally ill due only to a mental disorder. But this does not stop someone with anorexia – or indeed, someone abusing alcohol – from qualifying based on the physical deterioration caused by their illness.
'MPs may think such cases would never happen here. So did lawmakers in Oregon. We are urging the MPs to act now to ensure similar tragedies don't happen here.'
Tom Quinn, director of external affairs at Beat, the UK's leading eating disorder charity, told The Telegraph they were 'very disappointed' the amendment did not pass. He added: 'Eating disorders should never be classified as terminal, and this amendment would have added much-needed clarity around the issue.'
Gemma Oaten, chief executive of the charity Support and Empathy for People with Eating Disorders, said: 'Once again, those struggling with eating disorders are being overlooked, despite our relentless efforts to bring attention to this critical issue.'
The Royal College of Psychiatrists has also called on MPs to amend the draft legislation 'to explicitly exclude physical effects of mental disorder as the basis for eligibility'.
Hashtags

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


Glasgow Times
22 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Badenoch insists Tories are still the main opposition to Labour
Thursday's vote in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse saw the Tories win just 6% of the vote while Reform surged into third place with 26% a month after routing Mrs Badenoch's party in local elections across England. Reform's rise in the polls has led Sir Keir Starmer to regard Nigel Farage's party as Labour's main opposition in the current Parliament, despite having only five MPs. Answering questions after a speech on Friday, Mrs Badenoch dismissed Reform as a 'protest party' and said claims it was the real opposition were 'nonsense'. Describing Reform as 'another left-wing party', she said: 'What they're trying to do is talk this situation into existence. 'Labour is going to be facing the Conservative Party at the next election and we're going to get them out.' The Conservatives' electoral struggles come as the party continues to languish in third place in most polls while Mrs Badenoch's personal ratings show widespread dissatisfaction with her performance. Meanwhile, senior Tory and former leadership candidate Sir James Cleverly appeared this week to split from Mrs Badenoch on her claim that achieving net zero by 2050 was 'impossible'. Speaking on Friday, she maintained that she would be able to turn things around, saying: 'I've always said that things would be tough, in fact in some cases would likely get worse before they get better. 'There is a lot that needs doing, but I am of very, very strong confidence that the public will see that the party has changed and that we are the only credible alternative to Labour.' Her remarks followed a speech at the Royal United Services Institute in Westminster in which Mrs Badenoch launched a commission tasked with examining how leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) would work. While she stopped short of formally committing to leaving the convention, she said it was 'likely' that Britain would 'need to leave'. She said: 'I won't commit my party to leaving the ECHR or other treaties without a clear plan to do so and without a full understanding of all the consequences.'


Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Starmer will pay a heavy price for his efforts to fight off Reform
Next week's spending review should go better for the Chancellor than widely expected – at least, in the short term. The Treasury communications plan would normally build up to the big day by focussing on things that might get lost in the moment. So if they can pre-announce an extra £1bn for free school meals and £16bn for transport projects, that suggests there is even more good news up Rachel Reeves's sleeve. I suspect there will be reasons enough for Labour MPs to cheer on Wednesday. Together with the about-turn on the winter fuel allowance, however messy that may be, I'm sure this will get the Chancellor through the week. The reasoning for the winter fuel change is on display in Scotland. Labour won a surprise by-election victory in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, snatching the Scottish Parliament seat from the SNP. Not only that, but it managed to see off the threat of Reform, which surged into third place in the constituency. The real challenge will come in the autumn. Not least because the bill for this good news will have to be paid. Voters may not then be as grateful as they might be next week when they see their taxes go up thanks to the Government's botched attempt to reform the welfare system. So these short-term wins will quickly evaporate and simply store up more political trouble for the future. With other headwinds going against the Government, Reeves may need to find anywhere between an extra £10bn and £30bn in the next Budget. The Chancellor refused four times to rule out more tax rises this year when questioned at the CBI annual dinner this week, suggesting this is exactly what she is contemplating. Aside from the economic damage this will do, tax rises of this magnitude will have serious political implications. First of all, it will further exacerbate Reform's overall appeal. With a general election so far away, it doesn't really matter that Reform's numbers don't add up. People like what they are saying about tax cuts funded by spending less on net zero and diversity initiatives. With Labour poised to announce more money for net zero, Reform will argue it gives them even more cash with which to fund tax cuts. Any tax rise will therefore make this dividing line even starker. Given the scale of revenue needed, it looks increasingly likely that the Chancellor may have to break her manifesto pledge not to raise income tax, National Insurance or value added tax (VAT), as well as keeping corporation tax at or below 25pc. Some rises are politically more damaging than others. Faced with a choice of which promise to break, which is the most Reform-friendly option? Given that many of Reform's voters are on the economic Left, measures that hit lower-income, working people seem unlikely. So I think we can rule out income tax or National Insurance rises. Likewise, VAT. This was one of the many tax rises that seemed to always appear on Treasury scorecards ahead of each fiscal event I was involved in. It is straightforward and raises serious revenue, with each additional percentage point resulting in around £8bn of extra tax income. George Osborne increased the standard rate of VAT to 20pc, which didn't stop the Conservatives from winning a majority at the next general election. He hadn't promised not to do so, though – and I cannot see how this Government could target people's pockets when its main measure for economic growth is supposed to be real household disposable income. With inflation also expected to stay around 3pc for the rest of this year, anything that pushes prices up in the short term makes little sense. Which leaves one major tax that Labour promised to leave untouched, but that no one is really talking about: corporation tax. For the avoidance of doubt I think it would be a terrible mistake to increase it. It would be the final nail in the coffin of the Government's relationship with 'big business', send a dreadful signal to international investors and represent the end of Reeves's already-crumbling growth narrative. But if you compare it to the alternatives, I can see why Sir Keir Starmer and his Chancellor may go for it. For a start, it would be popular, even populist. Every Treasury commissioned opinion poll and focus group that I saw found overwhelming support for increasing tax on big business. It also passes the PM's payslip test and wouldn't directly hit working people in the pocket. It is lucrative too. Every percentage point increase would raise around £4bn a year. You could therefore get most, if not all the revenue you need, from one measure, avoiding the need to fight on many fronts. Whichever tax rise they do pick, expect the Chancellor to blame 'international events'. They will no doubt be helped somewhat by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which will (rightly) take into account the impact of increased global tariffs on GDP. Whether this negative hit is sufficient to mask the impact of the actions the Government itself has taken, we will see. By the autumn, the Government will be in damage-limitation territory. With Reform continuing to ride high in the polls, they may be tempted to find the money they need from big business rather than working people, regardless of the economic consequences. But the general election is a long way off and Starmer risks paying a heavy price if decisions he takes now to boost Labour's standing fail to sustain momentum by the time it comes around.

Western Telegraph
37 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Badenoch insists Tories are still the main opposition to Labour
Thursday's vote in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse saw the Tories win just 6% of the vote while Reform surged into third place with 26% a month after routing Mrs Badenoch's party in local elections across England. Reform's rise in the polls has led Sir Keir Starmer to regard Nigel Farage's party as Labour's main opposition in the current Parliament, despite having only five MPs. Answering questions after a speech on Friday, Mrs Badenoch dismissed Reform as a 'protest party' and said claims it was the real opposition were 'nonsense'. Describing Reform as 'another left-wing party', she said: 'What they're trying to do is talk this situation into existence. 'Labour is going to be facing the Conservative Party at the next election and we're going to get them out.' The Conservatives' electoral struggles come as the party continues to languish in third place in most polls while Mrs Badenoch's personal ratings show widespread dissatisfaction with her performance. Meanwhile, senior Tory and former leadership candidate Sir James Cleverly appeared this week to split from Mrs Badenoch on her claim that achieving net zero by 2050 was 'impossible'. Speaking on Friday, she maintained that she would be able to turn things around, saying: 'I've always said that things would be tough, in fact in some cases would likely get worse before they get better. 'There is a lot that needs doing, but I am of very, very strong confidence that the public will see that the party has changed and that we are the only credible alternative to Labour.' Her remarks followed a speech at the Royal United Services Institute in Westminster in which Mrs Badenoch launched a commission tasked with examining how leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) would work. While she stopped short of formally committing to leaving the convention, she said it was 'likely' that Britain would 'need to leave'. She said: 'I won't commit my party to leaving the ECHR or other treaties without a clear plan to do so and without a full understanding of all the consequences.'