
MPs back bill changes to prevent medics raising assisted dying with under-18s
Medics would not be allowed to raise assisted dying as an option with under-18s, and advertising it would be banned under changes backed by MPs on Friday before a final vote expected next week.
The Commons voted on amendments to the assisted dying bill, which would legalise the option for terminally ill adults in England and Wales who have been told they have fewer than six months to live.
The final Commons vote is scheduled on 20 June, with support and opposition finely balanced – and growing scrutiny over timelines, loopholes and who would ultimately deliver the system.
A majority of MPs approved a clause tabled by Labour MP Meg Hillier, an opponent of the bill, to ensure health professionals cannot raise the topic of assisted dying with under-18s.
A separate amendment from Hillier to bar health workers from bringing up assisted dying with adult patients before they have raised it themselves was voted down.
There were impassioned interventions from both sides of the debate. Rupa Huq, the Labour MP for Ealing Central, said the cost-of-living crisis would make assisted dying 'quite attractive' to people who were struggling.
'We know that BAME communities have lower disposable household income than standard households, and you can just imagine relatives in a housing crisis wanting to speed up grandad's probate to get a foot on the ladder, or granny or nanny, ma or daddy even convincing themselves that, 'look, they'd be better off out of the way given the cost of care,'' Huq said.
Caroline Voaden, the Liberal Democrat MP for South Devon, recalled the death of her husband, who she said had been 'in extreme pain' with terminal oesophageal cancer, and urged her colleagues to 'mind our language' after words like 'murder' were used.
'This is about helping people die in a civilised way and helping their families not go through a horrendous experience of watching a loved one die in agony,' Voaden said.
MPs voted in favour of a proposal by Kim Leadbeater, who is sponsoring the bill, to ban advertisements about assisted dying. But they rejected a separate proposal from Labour MP Paul Waugh for tighter regulations which would have limited exceptions on Friday's amendments. Waugh said he hoped that 'enough MPs now realise that it is not fit for purpose'.
The bill passed its first stage by a majority of 55 in November. Since then more than a dozen are thought to have switched sides to oppose the bill, though at least three have moved to support it.
A number of other amendments were passed on Friday, including a provision for assisted dying deaths to not automatically be referred to a coroner and an attempt to regulate substances for use in assisted dying. Demonstrators for and against a change in the law gathered outside parliament to make their views known.
Sign up to Headlines UK
Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning
after newsletter promotion
Opening the debate, Leadbeater said it was not about a choice between assisted dying or palliative care. 'Palliative and end-of-life care and assisted dying can and do work side by side to give terminally-ill patients the care and choice they deserve in their final days,' she said.
As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally-ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the bill and any amendments, meaning they vote according to their conscience rather than along party lines. The government is neutral on the legislation.
Stephen Kinnock, a health minister, said there had been more than 90 hours of parliamentary time spent debating the proposals so far, and more than 500 amendments had been considered at committee stage earlier this year.
Hashtags

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


The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
A burqa ban won't protect or unite Britain – it will divide us
It wasn't surprising to hear newly elected Reform MP Sarah Pochin call for a ban on the burqa – such calls resurface from time to time. What was surprising, however, was her decision to use her very first parliamentary question to raise this issue, rather than ask about pressing concerns such as the cost of living, NHS pressures or the rise in crime levels. Instead, she chose to single out and stigmatise Muslim women, making unfounded claims about public safety. On reflection, though, Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) provided a high-profile national platform, making it an ideal stage to stir further negativity towards Muslims. Unsurprisingly, Suella Braverman, known for her history of making disparaging remarks about Muslims, quickly added her voice. Targeting Muslims has become a convenient marketing tool for some right-wing politicians – a tactic used to gain support, attract media attention and generate publicity, regardless of the real-life consequences. Only a tiny minority of Muslim women in Britain have adopted the face veil (niqab) or the burqa – a long garment covering the entire body from head to foot, including the face. With a Muslim population of around four million, there has been no formal attempt to measure how many women wear the veil – but estimates suggest the number is likely to be only in the hundreds or low thousands. Similarly, in other European countries, estimates range from just 300 to 2,000. So why does such a small number attract so much public and political attention? The most common arguments used to justify prohibiting the veil in public are actually irrational. Tired and prejudiced tropes are used, such as suggesting women are being forced to wear the veil and need to be 'liberated', that it is a threat to public safety, that it is an obstacle to integration, or that it is simply visually offensive. Let's examine each of these claims more closely. Debates around women who wear the face veil are often driven by assumptions rather than grounded in evidence. In reality, the vast majority of Muslim women who choose to wear it do so voluntarily and for a variety of reasons – religious, cultural or personal. For many, it's an expression of faith, identity, modesty or spiritual commitment. Some even find it empowering, as it shifts the focus from appearance to character. Yes, there are cases where women may be pressured or forced to wear the veil – but these are instances of domestic abuse and coercive control, which require targeted support and awareness, not sweeping bans. I run the Muslim Women's Network Helpline, and in our 10 years of service, we've encountered only a handful of such cases. Concerns about identity concealment are often tied to public safety, yet there is no credible evidence linking the burqa to security threats in the UK. Security protocols already exist in sensitive settings (e.g. banks, airports and courts), where face coverings may need to be removed temporarily for identification purposes – and such situations are managed respectfully and without incident. This public safety narrative seems more about stoking fear than addressing real risks. Also, why is there so much anxiety about the anonymity of veiled Muslim women, especially in a world where much of our communication now happens online – through emails, social media and digital platforms – where anonymity is commonplace? Many people conceal their identities online to spread misinformation or abuse, yet this form of anonymity rarely provokes the same level of scrutiny by the same politicians. Claims that a burqa ban will promote community cohesion and integration are likely to have the opposite effect – deepening divisions instead. When any group feels threatened or pressured to conform through such hostile measures, they are more likely to become even more attached to how they express their identity. For the small minority of women who wear the veil, it may bring personal, social or economic challenges, but it remains their choice. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Muslim women who do not wear the veil continue to face significant social and economic barriers that are often overlooked. If concerns about integration and community cohesion were genuine, politicians would prioritise addressing the systemic discrimination and inequalities these women regularly experience. Some argue the burqa should be banned because it is considered offensive. Not everything that is offensive is prohibited. For example, in the UK, the right to offend is protected as part of freedom of speech, allowing the expression of unpopular or controversial views provided no harm is caused and laws are not broken. Similarly, while some may find the burqa visually offensive, the right of Muslim women to express their identity in this way must also be respected, because their clothing does not harm anyone. It is clearly a frightening time for Muslim women, especially those who are visibly identifiable by their clothing. Coded language by politicians that normalises hostility towards Muslims, fuels fear and hatred, and deepens societal intolerance, is making them feel unsafe. I therefore urge parliamentarians across all political parties to reject divisive rhetoric and commit instead to policies that address gendered anti-Muslim discrimination. Muslim women must be empowered to make independent choices about their own bodies – whatever those choices may be – and they must be able to live with dignity and equality.


Daily Mail
40 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour minister who claimed majority of Channel migrants were women and children now says he was only talking about ONE boat - as nearly 1,000 more cross to UK
A Labour Minister has had to issue a clarification after claiming on Question Time that 90 percent of people arriving in the UK on small boats are women and children, as another 919 made the dangerous journey across the Channel on Friday. Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, made the claim during Thursday's programme before hastily 'clarifying' he was referring to one specific boat after the figure was widely debunked online. The row came as Reform's Zia Yusuf, who revealed an inner chaos to the party when he abruptly quit as chairman last week before returning two days later in a new role, also made false claims when he said 'more than 90 percent' are men. Mr Jones provoked fury when he said that 'the majority of the people in these boats are children, babies and women'. Following cries of disbelief from members of the public, Mr Yusuf - who prevoiously said getting Reform elected was 'not a good use of my time' - interjected to say that 'more than 90 per cent of them are adult men', which is also incorrect. Home Office figures show 73 percent percent of small boat arrivals in 2024 - or 26,999 out of all 36,816 arrivals - were adult males. More than 14,800 people have arrived in Britain after making the crossing so far in 2025 - making it the highest start to the year on record, which experts have blamed on an usually high number of calm weather days. On Friday, another 919 people arrived in 14 small boats after making the dangerous crossing from France. The figure makes yesterday's arrivals the second highest number so far this year. On Question Time last night following Mr Yusuf's intervention, host Fiona Bruce turned to Mr Jones and asked: 'You're saying that's not true?' He replied: 'I'm saying it's not true. I'm saying this is controversial for a reason and you're told you're not supposed to challenge the audience on Question Time, but I'm going to. 'When there are babies and children put into that position by human trafficking gangs, who are coming across the Channel with skin burns from the oil from those boats mixing with the salt sea water, I would ask any of you to look at those babies and children and say 'go back'. Mr Yusuf hit back: 'In my previous answer, I made the case that this Government prioritises foreign citizens over citizens of the United Kingdom. After that testimony, I can rest my case. 'The vast, vast majority of people making the journey from France by small boat are fighting age, military age, males, not women and children. 'We're talking about asylum hotels, and Rachel Reeves saying we're going to shut down asylum hotels. 'I spent many weeks in the constituency of Runcorn and Helsby. Runcorn is a very deprived area. And do you know the issue that exercised people so much? The reason is primarily because of HMOs – houses of multiple occupancies. 'In an unholy alliance of Serco and Yvette Cooper, illegal migrants are being deposited into communities and there's no say for the local people.' Taking to X (formerly Twitter) this evening, Mr Jones clarified his position but maintained the percentage of migrants that are adult males is 'not north of 90 percent'. A group of people thought to be migrants are brought in to Dover, Kent, onboard the RNLI Ramsgate Lifeboat on Friday An overloaded dinghy is pictured as it attempts to make the perilous journey cross the Channel from France He wrote: 'Of course the overall majority of people arriving illegally on small boats are men - but not 'north of 90 percent' as Reform claimed. 'On @bbcquestiontime I shared a story from my visit to the Border Security Command about a dinghy that arrived mostly carrying women, children and babies who had suffered horrific burns. 'I'm happy to clarify this given how this is now being misrepresented. 'Labour committed new funding this week to secure our borders while Reform have voted against giving our police the powers needed to smash the gangs fuelling this vile trade.' At her spending review on Wednesday, Rachel Reeves pledged that migrants would be moved out of hotel accommodation by the time of the next general election, due in 2029. Ms Reeves also promised £1 billion of savings by speeding up the asylum system, along with £280 million investment in future years for the new Border Security Command. Latest figures show £3.1 billion was spent on housing asylum seekers in hotels in 2023-24, out of a total asylum support bill of £4.7 billion. More than 30,000 asylum seekers are housed in about 200 hotels across Britain, many of whom arrived illegally in dinghies, and ministers are looking at moving them into derelict tower blocks and student digs. But despite Ms Reeves' pledge to end the use of hotels, the Tories pointed out that the small print of her Spending Review documents revealed that £2.5 billion will still be spent each year on asylum support by the end of the decade. It comes as dramatic pictures emerged of French police using tear gas and pepper spray to disperse hundreds of migrants trying to board boats headed for Britain. Some officers were seen entering the water and dragging them back to shore. A major point of contention between Britain and France has been the French authorities' refusal to turn back migrants who are already in the water. Despite officers' efforts, a significant number of migrants were able to successfully cross this morning - with pictures showing them at Dover. A major point of contention between Britain and France has been the French authorities' refusal to turn back migrants who are already in the water A record five months of the year has brought the provisional arrivals today so far to 14,812 arrivals. This has also surpassed the highest total recorded for the first six months of the year, which was previously 13,489 on June 30 last year. In 2024, the number of arrivals did not reach more than 14,000 until July 9 (14,058). The Government has vowed to crack down on people-smuggling and Channel crossings since coming to power in July last year. This includes funding elite officers to increase patrols along the northern French coastline and launching a specialist intelligence unit in Dunkirk to track down people smugglers. It has also established a Border Security Command to lead strategy and its Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, currently going through Parliament, seeks to introduce new criminal offences and hand counter terror-style powers to law enforcement agencies to target smuggling gangs. However, critics have repeatedly warned the 'smash the gangs' strategy will not work unless there is a deterrent strong enough to prevent migrants from wanting to make the crossing in the first place. Yesterday, a spokesman for the PM repeatedly refused to engaged with questions about whether Mr Jones was right. 'The Government is absolutely focused on tackling these vile smuggling gangs… ' they said. Asked again about Home Office figures suggesting he is wrong, the spokesman said: 'The focus of the government is tackling these vile gangs that deal in misery.' Pressed if the PM had confidence in Mr Jones, the spokesman said: 'Yes.' Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: 'Darren Jones is completely out of touch with reality. 'Since 2018, 73 percent of small boat arrivals have been single adult men. Yet Labour MPs like Jones still push the fairytale that these boats are full of women and babies. It's a dangerous distortion of the truth. 'No wonder this is shaping up to be the worst year on record for small boat crossings. If this is what passes for reality inside the Labour Government, Britain is in serious trouble.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We all want to end dangerous small boat crossings, which threaten lives and undermine our border security. 'The people-smuggling gangs do not care if the vulnerable people they exploit live or die as long as they pay, and we will stop at nothing to dismantle their business models and bring them to justice. 'That is why this Government has put together a serious plan to take down these networks at every stage, and why we are investing up to an additional £280 million per year by 2028-29 in the Border Security Command. 'Through international intelligence-sharing under our Border Security Command, enhanced enforcement operations in northern France and tougher legislation in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, we are strengthening international partnerships and boosting our ability to identify, disrupt and dismantle criminal gangs whilst strengthening the security of our borders.'


The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
I never thought I'd have to worry about Isobel – then she died at 21 after dismissive doctors said ‘just take ibuprofen'
WHEN Isobel Allen cried to her GP about the pain she was experiencing, the teenager was told not to worry. It would be several appointments later - and eventually, after opting to go private - that Isobel would find out that her painful periods were the first sign of the disease that would lead to her death. 13 13 13 Isobel, of Hornchurch, Essex, was a normal 19-year-old girl who liked to go out with her friends and buy new clothes. She worked as an accounts manager at a recruitment company and her parents say they never worried for her future. Something about Isobel's pain didn't sit right with mum, Sarah, but she tried to believe the doctors. But looking back, Sarah realises how Isobel was "let down". Isobel died on April 2, 2025, aged 21 years old. She was told she had incurable sarcoma cancer six months after first seeing a GP. Sarah, a former hairdresser, tells Sun Health: 'The doctors literally thought she was a teenager making a meal out of nothing. 'But I knew she wasn't, I knew that the pain she was in wasn't normal. 'Isobel felt so strongly - and we do as a family - that medics aren't listening to these youngsters. They're being misdiagnosed time and time again. 'She would scream at the TV when she saw one of those NHS adverts saying ' early diagnosis saves lives '. Because we had to pay privately for her diagnosis." Sarah, who is married to Isobel's dad, Christian Allen, 50, who works in the construction industry, adds: 'I know deep down it isn't our fault, but as parents, there have been times when we've doubted ourselves. But you believe the medical professionals. 'Isobel fought with every bone in her body. At her funeral, her dad said, 'I never thought I'd have to worry about Isabel. She was confident, outgoing, and had everything going for her'. 'And it changed so suddenly.' 13 Isobel started having painful periods and spotting - bleeding inbetween - in November 2022. Sarah says they went to the GP 'a few times' before Isobel was given an ultrasound. 'He said it was fibroids [benign growths in the womb] and she started to cry,' Sarah recalls. 'He said, 'Why are you crying?' And she said, 'I'm worried it could be something serious'. He said, 'No, no, it's just fibroids'. 'So we didn't think anything more of it. I have fibroids, a lot of women do.' But Sarah grew concerned because the pain Isobel was experiencing seemed abnormal, with painkillers barely touching the sides. By February, she was experiencing 'really bad belly pain' - which Sarah says doctors recommended ibuprofen for - and in March, the pain spread to her back and legs. They told us Isobel had cancer and it had spread to quite a few places. It wasn't like how you see it on the TV, when they hold your hand. She was told quickly, without compassion. SarahIsobel's mum Sarah took her to A&E at Queen's Hospital in Romford on two occasions in March which conducted more ultrasounds. 'By now, Isobel could hardly walk, she was hanging on to me to walk, and had been signed off work,' she says. 'The only time she was happy or comfortable was if she was in the bath or laying on the settee. 'She was running baths at three o'clock in the morning. I just knew it wasn't normal. 'I've found out since this that youngsters can sleep through pain and if they can't, it's something really bad. Now that's all adding up.' Isobel was also suffering bloating, loss of appetite, night sweats and fatigue - all red flag signs of cancer. She was referred to The London Independent Hospital and was told by a gynaecologist again that she had a fibroid in the womb. An MRI would have a six month-wait because they were 'prioritising cancer patients'. 'IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER GOT THIS FAR' The family had had enough, forking out £500 for a private MRI scan, in April 2023. Two days later, they were seen by a consultant and Sarah "could tell by her face" that it was bad news. Sarah recalls: 'The consultant said, 'This looks nasty, you should prepare yourselves. She also said it should 'never have got this far'." Isobel was then referred to Queen's, which told her to come in with a night bag. But she ended up having a 40-day hospital stay. On Friday May 12, a diagnosis was given to Isobel with her mum and dad there, following a biopsy. The 'fibroid' turned out to be a tumour on Isobel's womb. Sarah says: 'It wasn't like how you see it on the TV, when they hold your hand. She was told quickly, without compassion. 'They told us Isobel had cancer and it had spread to quite a few places.' Tumours were eventually found in her lungs, hip and kidneys. Isobel was blue-lighted to University College London Hospitals (UCLH) because she was so unwell, and a few days later, on Thursday May 18, the family were hit with another devastating blow. 13 13 The symptoms of sarcoma cancer The most common symptom of soft tissue sarcoma is a lump somewhere on the body. But this doesn't necessarily mean cancer - there are all sorts of reasons for lumps and swellings, but it must always be checked by a GP. The lump is usually found deep under the skin and might be felt before it can be seen. The lump is usually solid to the touch, painless and hard to move around under the skin. It will continue to grow and as it does, it can become painful. Other symptoms depend on where in the body the lump is. These can include: Tummy pain and constipation if there is a sarcoma near the tummy A cough that does not go away if there is a sarcoma near the lungs Source: NHS Sarah says: 'They told us it was incurable, and that they would do everything they could to prolong her life. Which, at the age of 19, is not what you want to hear. 'I didn't leave her side after that. I was just too scared, let down, devastated… just looking at her and crying. We all cried. 'She would say, 'Why me? Why couldn't I have gotten another cancer?' To go through that as a family, it was unbearable.' Sarcoma UK say more than 5,100 people are diagnosed with the disease each year. In a recent study, it was shown to take an average of almost seven weeks to diagnose in children. Sarcoma develops in the body's bones and soft tissues, such as muscles, fat, blood vessels, nerves, tendons, and joint linings. There are more than 100 subtypes, the two main ones being soft tissue and bone. 13 13 13 13 Cancer Research UK says: 'Soft tissue sarcoma incidence is unusual compared with most cancers because a sizeable proportion of cases occur in children and younger adults; however, the highest incidence rates are in older people.' Soft tissue sarcoma has a 45 per cent survival rate for 10 or more years. Devastated by the shocking survival statistics of sarcoma, Isobel knew she had to raise money in the hopes it would contribute to better outcomes for future patients. She raised £13,000 for Sarcoma UK at a charity ball, and her brother brother, Josh Allen, 24, has since ran the London Marathon, raising £27,000. Her friends are fundraising for Race For Life in July. FOUGHT 'TIL THE END Isobel started chemotherapy, but it was a means to extend her time with family, living life as normally as she could between the side effects. She returned to her work, even commuting to London two days a week, and her supportive friends would plan meet-ups around her chemotherapy schedule so she'd have the energy to join them. The nurses always laughed that she'd turn up to her chemotherapy in a new outfit, wig and full face of makeup - until she became too weak. Even when they told us about the tumour on her lung, I was sobbing and she said, 'Come on, mummy, it is what it is'. SarahIsobel's mum Eventually, the family got the news that there was nothing more that could be done. It was Christmas 2024, and they were advised to think about end-of-life care. Sarah says: 'We had some tough conversations with the consultant in January, who said it wasn't looking good. So Isobel knew the time was getting nearer. 'In March, she was struggling to breathe and they took her into hospital to drain fluid from her lungs - but it wasn't fluid, it was a tumour. 'That's when they said we need to get her home and make her comfortable. She wanted to be on the sofa, so we got her bedding down, and we actually all slept in the living room. 'She died the next day, on Wednesday at 10 to 3, at home with her family. "I just didn't realise it would be that quick. 'Isobel had protected us all along. She fought so hard to carry on as normal, even though the whole time, she had this deadly disease inside of her. 'Isobel was still talking about trying to go on holiday to Spain, she was ordering clothes two days before her death. She was just trying to live like any normal 19-year-old would. 'She was the one comforting us. Even when they told us about the tumour on her lung, I was sobbing and she said, 'Come on, mummy, it is what it is'.' Speaking of her legacy, Sarah notes a tattoo Isobel got towards the end of her life. It read 'Go Live Life'. 'We've had so many parents and other young girls message us from UCLH to say how she inspired them. 'Even her consultant wrote that she was an 'inspiring young lady'. One girl who rang the bell in December said 'Isobel changed my life'. 'She would light up daycare. She'd tell them not to stop living their life, and they were more than cancer.' A spokesperson for The London Independent Hospital, said: 'While, it would be inappropriate for us to discuss individual cases, we send our deepest condolences to the patient's family at this extremely difficult time. " All patients who are referred to us undergo a comprehensive and meticulous consultation to identify and diagnose their symptoms. Should further tests and scans be required to investigate their condition, then these are booked promptly either at our hospital or a referral is made to another appropriate facility.' Matthew Trainer, Chief Executive, Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, said: 'I'd like to extend our sincere condolences to Isobel's family. We're extremely sorry for their loss.' 13