Rantzen: MPs backing assisted dying Bill will protect people from ‘bad death'
Dame Esther Rantzen has said MPs backing the assisted dying Bill will make a 'huge positive difference' and protect terminally ill people from a 'bad death'.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will now head to the Lords after clearing the Commons on Friday afternoon, with MPs voting 314 in favour, 291 against, majority 23.
Dame Esther, a notable supporter of campaign Dignity in Dying who has stage four lung cancer, told the PA news agency: 'This will make a huge positive difference, protecting millions of terminally ill patients and their families from the agony and loss of dignity created by a bad death.
'Thank you, Parliament.'
Campaigners inside Parliament and outside in Parliament Square were jubilant and tearful following the result of the vote.
Some MPs lined up to shake hands with or hug Kim Leadbeater, the Bill's sponsor through the Commons.
Ms Leadbeater described the vote as a 'result that so many people need'.
The Labour MP for Spen Valley said: 'Thank goodness we got the result that so many people need, but I also feel that it was done really respectfully and the atmosphere in the chamber was very civilised.'
Outside, a cheer erupted as the result was announced on a livestream to a crowd who had huddled together in anticipation. Many cried and hugged each other, while others popped champagne.
Dame Esther's daughter, Rebecca Wilcox, called her mother in front of supporters and told her she wished she was here.
Ms Wilcox came to Parliament Square following the vote and hugged fellow campaigners and friends.
She told PA that she gave Ms Leadbeater's mum a 'big hug' following the result and added: 'I don't know whether to have a drink or a really big cry.
'There were a few of us in the public gallery and we were all holding hands. I felt like we were on a rollercoaster.
'It was the longest pause when everyone came in and we were waiting for the four and when I heard a three for the 'ayes' I was quite positive.
'It was quite extraordinary. I turned around and gave Kim's mum a great big hug.'
Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, told the crowd: 'This is for all the people who couldn't be here today. This vote sends a clear message. Parliament stands with the public and change is coming.'
Sian Berry, a Green Party MP and one of the proposers of the Bill, told PA: 'We all have experience of loved ones at the end of their lives that have influenced this. So many of my constituents have written to me telling me their stories. You really feel the importance of what you're doing this for.
'I'm confident we have made the Bill robust and I do believe this reflects public opinion.'
Supporter Tim Murphy, 39, from London, said: 'My friend David went to Dignitas four years ago and he had to die sooner than he should have had there been a workable law in this country.
'This will impact so many people. So much of the [opposition] campaign has been hypothetical situations in the future but not taking into consideration the actual deaths that have occurred.'
Those opposed to the Bill were visibly disappointed. People had gathered to pray before the vote but the crowd of white-shirted campaigners quickly dispersed following the result. Many packed up their signs and left the square and did not speak to the press.
Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally, a former chief nursing officer for England who sits in the House of Lords, said: 'Every person is of immeasurable and irreducible value, and should be able to access the care and support that they need – a principle that I know is shared by those of all faiths and none.
'We must oppose a law that puts the vulnerable at risk and instead work to improve funding and access to desperately needed palliative care services.'
Sean Redfearn, 26, representing Christian Concern, said: 'It's disappointing the nation is stepping closer for people to take their own lives.'
'There is no progress as progress suggests flourishing and there's no flourishing with allowing the ending of a life.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
MPs may have passed the assisted dying bill, but the debate is just beginning
Now that the assisted dying bill has passed its momentous third reading in the House of Commons, it may seem like legalisation in England and Wales is a done deal. But despite this significant milestone, the bill is not yet law and its journey through the House of Lords is far from a formality. While the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill is now closer than ever to becoming law, both the Commons and the Lords must agree on its final wording. And just like in the Commons, there are passionate supporters and vocal opponents in the Lords. Peers are expected to focus their attention on a number of outstanding, and controversial, issues. One of the biggest concerns that surfaced during both the report stage and today's third reading relates to the speed and process of drafting the legislation. Because this is a private member's bill, introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, it was subject to strict timelines. Leadbeater had just 85 days to work with legal drafters and set out a policy framework before the bill was published ahead of its second reading in November 2024. Despite this, the democracy-supporting charity the Hansard Society has noted that the bill is 'among the most heavily scrutinised in recent times', and it could ultimately receive up to 200 hours of parliamentary debate, especially now that it has moved to the Lords. Still, the fast turnaround meant that many important decisions, such as what medications will be approved for use in assisted dying, have been left for the secretary of state to determine later through what's known as delegated legislation (secondary laws made without a full parliamentary vote). One area likely to receive particular scrutiny is the bill's inclusion of so-called 'Henry VIII clauses'. These are controversial powers that allow ministers to make changes to existing primary legislation, effectively altering acts of parliament without needing a new law. A key example is clause 38 that would let ministers revise the NHS Act 2006 to formally include assisted dying within NHS services. Several amendments aimed at strengthening the bill's safeguards were supported during the Commons stages. These included the introduction of independent advocates, a new disability advisory board, and additional protections for people with learning disabilities, mental health conditions, or autism. An amendment from Labour MP Naz Shah was also supported at the third reading, ensuring that a person who chooses to stop eating and drinking will not automatically be considered terminally ill. This is a protection designed to prevent the system being used inappropriately. Yet despite these measures, concerns remain. Critics worry about the risk of coercion, both from others and self imposed. There is particular unease about people feeling pressured to choose assisted dying because they consider themselves a burden. Questions have also been raised about whether those with conditions like anorexia might qualify for assisted dying under the current wording of the bill. Even with the new safeguards, including mandatory training for doctors to detect coercion and assess mental capacity, many feel the bill needs tighter definitions and clearer criteria to protect the most vulnerable. The impact on palliative and end-of-life care continues to be a major point of debate. Today, MPs backed an amendment from Liberal Democrat MP Munira Wilson that would require the government to assess the state of palliative care services within one year of the law being enacted. Peers in the House of Lords may push further on this issue. Some may argue that before a person can request assisted dying, they should first be referred to a palliative care specialist to fully understand their options. Others may want the law to spell out more clearly who is qualified to assess these requests. Another key question is who should provide assisted dying services. The British Medical Association has previously suggested a model where assisted dying operates outside the core NHS system. This would be a kind of parallel service overseen by the health secretary but delivered by independent providers. This would be similar to how early medical abortions are offered in some parts of the UK. Time is tight in the Lords, so peers will probably focus on a few high priority areas. Any amendments will need to be proposed, debated and approved quickly if the bill is to continue progressing this session. Even if the bill passes, it includes a four year implementation period to allow for the development of more detailed policies, including training for professionals, protocols for medication and clearer guidance on safeguarding. The passing of the bill in the Commons is historic. But the national conversation on assisted dying is not over. And the next phase will determine how this sensitive and deeply personal issue is handled in practice. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Suzanne Ost has previously received funding from the AHRC for her assisted dying research. Nancy Preston receives funding from Horizon Europe, Horizon 2020 and the NIHR
Politico
3 hours ago
- Politico
Supreme Court revives lawsuits seeking to hold Palestine Liberation Organization liable for terrorist attacks
The Supreme Court has revived lawsuits against the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority over terrorist attacks that killed and injured Americans. The justices on Friday unanimously overturned a ruling from a federal appeals court that Congress violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process by enacting a 2019 law that expanded the jurisdiction of U.S. courts to hear terrorism-related suits against the PLO and PA. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts , the high court cited the history of U.S. interaction with the Palestinian entities and the 'sensitive foreign policy concerns' behind Congress' choice to authorize federal courts to hear the terrorism-related cases. Congress' decision to expand the courts' jurisdiction in these circumstances does not violate due process-based limits on the reach of U.S. courts, Roberts said. 'It is permissible for the Federal Government to craft a narrow jurisdictional provision that ensures, as part of a broader foreign policy agenda, that Americans injured or killed by acts of terror have an adequate forum in which to vindicate their right to … compensation' under U.S. law, Roberts wrote. Roberts insisted the ruling was not a sweeping one signaling that Congress could subject any foreign entity to litigation in the U.S. over any conduct at any time. The 2019 law, known as the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, does not put the Palestinian entities 'at broad risk of being haled into U.S. courts for myriad civil liability actions,' Roberts emphasized. 'Rather, the statute applies only to … a narrow category of claims that provide civil remedies only for Americans injured by acts of international terrorism.' The high court's decision reinstates lawsuits that were brought on behalf of Americans killed or injured in a 2001 shooting attack in Jerusalem, the bombing of a Hebrew University cafeteria in that city in 2002, a bus bombing there in 2004 and a stabbing attack outside a shopping center in Gush Etzion , Israel, in 2018. The suits contend that the PLO and PA's practice of making payments to the families of Palestinians killed or imprisoned in connection with acts of terrorism encouraged such acts and rendered the PLO and PA financially liable for damages sought by victims and their families. A PA spokesperson did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment on the ruling. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2023 that Congress' tweak to the law four years earlier, attempting to give the courts 'personal jurisdiction' over the PLO and PA, was unconstitutional. Roberts' opinion was fully joined by six other justices — all three of the court's liberals and three of the conservatives. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined their colleagues in overturning the 2nd Circuit ruling, but adopted different rationales for doing so. 'The Federal Government has always possessed the power to extend its jurisdiction beyond the Nation's borders,' Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion. Gorsuch joined that portion of Thomas' concurrence. In another passage Gorsuch did not join, Thomas went further. 'I am skeptical that entities such as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) enjoy any constitutional rights at all,' Thomas wrote.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Rantzen: MPs backing assisted dying Bill will protect people from ‘bad death'
Dame Esther Rantzen has said MPs backing the assisted dying Bill will make a 'huge positive difference' and protect terminally ill people from a 'bad death'. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will now head to the Lords after clearing the Commons on Friday afternoon, with MPs voting 314 in favour, 291 against, majority 23. Dame Esther, a notable supporter of campaign Dignity in Dying who has stage four lung cancer, told the PA news agency: 'This will make a huge positive difference, protecting millions of terminally ill patients and their families from the agony and loss of dignity created by a bad death. 'Thank you, Parliament.' Campaigners inside Parliament and outside in Parliament Square were jubilant and tearful following the result of the vote. Some MPs lined up to shake hands with or hug Kim Leadbeater, the Bill's sponsor through the Commons. Ms Leadbeater described the vote as a 'result that so many people need'. The Labour MP for Spen Valley said: 'Thank goodness we got the result that so many people need, but I also feel that it was done really respectfully and the atmosphere in the chamber was very civilised.' Outside, a cheer erupted as the result was announced on a livestream to a crowd who had huddled together in anticipation. Many cried and hugged each other, while others popped champagne. Dame Esther's daughter, Rebecca Wilcox, called her mother in front of supporters and told her she wished she was here. Ms Wilcox came to Parliament Square following the vote and hugged fellow campaigners and friends. She told PA that she gave Ms Leadbeater's mum a 'big hug' following the result and added: 'I don't know whether to have a drink or a really big cry. 'There were a few of us in the public gallery and we were all holding hands. I felt like we were on a rollercoaster. 'It was the longest pause when everyone came in and we were waiting for the four and when I heard a three for the 'ayes' I was quite positive. 'It was quite extraordinary. I turned around and gave Kim's mum a great big hug.' Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, told the crowd: 'This is for all the people who couldn't be here today. This vote sends a clear message. Parliament stands with the public and change is coming.' Sian Berry, a Green Party MP and one of the proposers of the Bill, told PA: 'We all have experience of loved ones at the end of their lives that have influenced this. So many of my constituents have written to me telling me their stories. You really feel the importance of what you're doing this for. 'I'm confident we have made the Bill robust and I do believe this reflects public opinion.' Supporter Tim Murphy, 39, from London, said: 'My friend David went to Dignitas four years ago and he had to die sooner than he should have had there been a workable law in this country. 'This will impact so many people. So much of the [opposition] campaign has been hypothetical situations in the future but not taking into consideration the actual deaths that have occurred.' Those opposed to the Bill were visibly disappointed. People had gathered to pray before the vote but the crowd of white-shirted campaigners quickly dispersed following the result. Many packed up their signs and left the square and did not speak to the press. Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally, a former chief nursing officer for England who sits in the House of Lords, said: 'Every person is of immeasurable and irreducible value, and should be able to access the care and support that they need – a principle that I know is shared by those of all faiths and none. 'We must oppose a law that puts the vulnerable at risk and instead work to improve funding and access to desperately needed palliative care services.' Sean Redfearn, 26, representing Christian Concern, said: 'It's disappointing the nation is stepping closer for people to take their own lives.' 'There is no progress as progress suggests flourishing and there's no flourishing with allowing the ending of a life.'
