'I watched my mum suffer and die slowly for three days - it was horrific'
It comes as MSPs on the Scottish Parliament's Health Committee said the upcoming vote on assisted dying was a 'matter of conscience' and they would not be making a recommendation either for or against the plans to legalise assisted dying for those suffering from a terminal illness.
The Committee also highlighted several areas it says will require further consideration at Stage 2, should MSPs vote to approve the Bill at Stage 1.
Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur brought forward the legislation at Holyrood, which aims to give terminally ill adults the right to request help to end their life.
'I didn't expect to be sitting there day and night watching her slowly die'
Lucinda Kingham
Lucinda Kingham watched her mother Julie-Anne die following a brain haemorrhage at 59 years old.
She sat with her grandmother for three days as her mum, originally from Scotland but living in London, struggled.
She says that her experience highlights the need for legal reform after her mum was declared brain dead. STV News Lucinda Kingham talks about her mum, Julie-Anne who suffered for three days before she died.
She told STV News: 'They removed all her life support in the hospital and that was it.
'They gave her sedation and said we essentially need to wait for her to die. I asked the consultant how long it would take… they said it would take days and it did.
'She had nothing wrong with her heart or lungs but she wasn't alive. She was brain-dead.
'We spent three days in the hospital watching my mum suffer. There was a lot of secretions coming up, she was gargling which made it sound like she was drowning.
'It was horrific to witness. The most distressing thing was being there day and night for three days, sleeping there for no reason, because she was not alive.
'But we had to witness the most horrific things happening to her.' STV News STV News
She added: 'We got to a point we just wanted it to be over. It needs to end. My mum is dead. Why is she being kept alive?
'I could physically see her suffering.'
Lucinda says Julie-Anne wanted to 'die with dignity' and would have supported assisted dying had it been in place at the time of her death.
'I didn't expect to be sitting there day and night watching her slowly die,' she said.
The Holyrood committee acknowledged the definition of terminal illness in the Bill does not include a life expectancy timescale and that this would mean widening eligibility for assisted dying to include individuals who, although living with an illness or condition that is progressive and untreatable, may not be approaching death for a considerable period of time.
MSPs also concluded that the issue of conscientious objection for healthcare workers will require further attention should the Bill progress to Stage 2, to ensure the relevant provisions of the Bill provide an appropriate level of legal clarity and certainty for all parties involved in the assisted dying process.
Clare Haughey, convener of the health, social care and sport committee, said: 'Ultimately, our Committee believes the Stage 1 vote is a matter of conscience for each individual MSP and as a result has made no overall recommendation as to how they should vote on the general principles of the Bill.
'However, should the Bill progress to Stage 2, we have highlighted a number of areas which we feel will require further consideration before the Bill can become law.
'These include issues around human rights, coercion, eligibility criteria, provision of assistance, self-administration and conscientious objection for healthcare workers.
'We also recognise that there are particular complexities associated with those aspects of the Bill which extend beyond the limits of the powers currently devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
'If the Parliament approves the Bill at Stage 1, there will need to be an open and constructive dialogue between the Scottish and UK Governments to resolve these issues and to allow the Bill to take full legal effect.'
On the issue of capacity, the committee said this would need to be assessed in a 'fair and non-discriminatory way' for those with a mental disorder, while also seeking to give 'suitable protection for vulnerable individuals'.
Additional safeguards could also be considered against 'so-called 'doctor shopping' – where people try to find a doctor who will support them to end their life.
The Bill is centred around allowing terminally ill people in Scotland to be assisted in their death. It has restrictions on what conditions it would apply to, the person would have to be 16 or over and resident in Scotland for at least 12 months, as well as have the capacity to take the decision.
This is the third time Holyrood has voted on the issue – there was also a proposal in 2004 that didn't get enough support to be introduced.
However, the last vote on the issue was in 2015. Since then there's been two Scottish elections, Westminster has started examining the issue following a Bill introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbetter and, just last month, assisted dying passed its final legislative vote on the Isle of Man.
The Bill is centred around allowing terminally ill people in Scotland to be assisted in their death. It has restrictions on what conditions it would apply to, the person would have to be 16 or over and resident in Scotland for at least 12 months, as well as have the capacity to take the decision.
This is the third time Holyrood has voted on the issue – there was also a proposal in 2004 that didn't get enough support to be introduced.
But the last vote on the issue was in 2015. Since then there's been two Scottish elections, Westminster has started examining the issue following a Bill introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbetter and, just last month, assisted dying passed its final legislative vote on the Isle of Man.
At Holyrood, this will be the first time that 86 of the 129 MSPs will have casted a vote on the issue. And for between ten and 20 of them, it's still a decision they are wrestling with, meaning the Bill's potential to progress is on a knife edge.
First Minister John Swinney said last year that he was 'actively and carefully' considering his position, and would make his views known on McArthur's Bill ahead of the vote at the Scottish Parliament.
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Hostage: 'Playing the Prime Minister 'changes your perception' of politics' says Suranne Jones
Actress Suranne Jones has taken on the role of many women under immense pressure. In Doctor Foster she suspects her husband of having an affair, in Vigil she investigates a death on board a submarine, and in Gentleman Jack she develops a dangerous lesbian romance. But none of the roles are quite as pressured as her latest - playing a British prime minister whose husband is kidnapped. Hostage, Netflix's new political thriller, sees Jones' character, Abigail Dalton, build an uneasy alliance with French President Vivienne Toussaint - played by Julie Delpy - who is being blackmailed during a London two leaders work together in order to rescue the PM's husband, unmask the kidnapper and blackmailer, and bring those responsible to justice. 'Political with a small p' Given its themes of immigration, the funding of the NHS and public trust, audiences may be tempted to connect Hostage to today's headlines. But, both stars insist the show is less about mirroring today's politics and more about creating a thrilling story set in the political world. "We're entertaining and we're in the political world, but it's in no way a reflection of the world we live in," Jones tells the BBC."It's political with a small p - there's enough that roots us in the real world but the world is too complicated to link it directly and I think it would be inappropriate." Delpy agrees and says: "Things change every day. It's impossible to be in the political moment because tomorrow is something else."The show's writer, Matt Charman, explains that there are some connections to the real world as it's "impossible to write a show that exists in the climate we live in that doesn't end up feeling that it's in dialogue with it". "If you wrote a show that isn't connected to our world it would feel weird," he says, "but I hope the show does have the ability to exist in its own oxygen." It is rare to see two female world leaders sharing the spotlight in a political thriller, but, for Charman, making sure Dalton and Toussaint were women was integral to the way the series was conceived and it was both a creative and political choice. "What was exciting was the idea of women in power and how we explore that," he says, explaining that he tried to explore how each situation the characters face would be different for a woman. "There's a double standard for women, so giving full dramatic freedom to that was very important." Charman and Jones have shared an agent for the past 10 years and Hostage came about because Charman really wanted to work with Jones and the pair settled on creating a political thriller. Jones says she particularly enjoyed exploring "how these two women have to dance around each other"."A female politician is used to dealing with men so it's interesting to see how it plays out when it's two women." While viewers quickly learn about Jones' character - a loving wife and mother who is idealistic about bettering the country - Delpy's character is more drawn out and our opinion of her changes throughout the show."We made sure not to play into the female politician stereotypes," Delpy say. "What I like is that these women actually have some things in common like they both want change and came into office hopeful." The Guardian describe Hostage as "quite unusual" in that it doesn't remind you of any other political thrillers. "It's a little biting but it's not House of Cards cynical, it has a breakneck pace but it's not 24, the dialogue is sharp but never played for laughs," Zoe Williams writes. 'Cost of being in power' To play Dalton convincingly, Jones, who also served as an executive producer on the show, says she really immersed herself in the reality of political life. She visited the House of Commons, spoke to the Speaker of the House and devoured books, podcasts and documentaries. "I'm a bit of a geek when it comes to research," she admits. "I was fascinated by not emulating anyone but by understanding a life I knew nothing about. And it's the cost of being in a powerful position in that way that really struck me."Charman also talks about the extraordinary amount of research that went into creating the show. I ask him whether Dalton or Toussaint were inspired by any real life politicians and he confesses that they are, but he won't say who. "We interviewed a lot of people and Suranne had incredible access to people who had been prime minister who talked about their time in office and the pressure on their family. But it was all agreed that they would speak about this as long as it could remain confidential," he says. Jones won't say which politicians inspired her character but says all of her previous characters are a part of her and she has "a boardroom of personalities" which feed into who she plays. She says all the research into what it's like to be a politician "changes your perception for sure" and makes you realise "the cost of being in a powerful position". One question the show raises is whether or not it's possible for a politician today to stick to their ideals once they come into office and while Jones is unsure, Charman is an optimist. "I wanted to explore how there can be decent people in politics who are fundamentally good but get pushed around," he says. He adds that it's not "inevitable" that people give up their ideals once in office, but "it's definitely tough to keep your morals". Above the thrills and drama of Hostage, Charman says the show explores "what it takes to be a good person in a system that doesn't always reward good people."Delpy is slightly more pessimistic and explains that given "politicians have to be heard, if you're too reasonable you won't be listened to as there's so much noise of both extremes"."If you have a moderate view you get lost in the noise as people are only listening to the loudest."
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Smacking ban urged amid growing belief child physical punishment ‘unacceptable'
But it is not completely outlawed in England and Northern Ireland. Ten-year-old Sara Sharif's murder previously prompted renewed calls for a smacking ban (Surrey Police/PA) According to the Children Act 2004, it is unlawful to hit your child, except where it is 'reasonable punishment', and this is judged on a case-by-case basis. New polling for the NSPCC, carried out by YouGov, suggests around eight in 10 people (82%) aged between 18 and 24 believe it is unacceptable for a parent to use force, however slight, against a child. This is an increase from 64% of young adults who thought it was unacceptable when polled in 2023. Among parents specifically, the figures have remained high in recent years, with the latest polling showing 81% felt this way, up slightly from 80% last year and from 76% in 2022. YouGov surveyed 3,800 adults across England in July, of which 749 were parents with a child under 18 and 198 were aged 18 to 24 years old. Of all adults surveyed, 71% said they believe physical punishment against a child is unacceptable, up from 67% in 2023. Earlier this year leading health experts came together to urge parliamentarians to give children the 'fundamental right to safety and protection' by backing a smacking ban. The children's doctors and psychiatrists said decades of research showed the 'detrimental effects of physical punishment'. On the latest figures, NSPCC chief executive Chris Sherwood said: 'Parents and young people are telling us loud and clear that they don't want physical punishment to be a part of anyone's childhood. 'Parents know their children and what works best for them. It is therefore crucial their experiences and opinions are not ignored or undermined, but act as a wake-up call. 'As parliamentarians continue to debate the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we urge them to change the law to better reflect public attitudes to violence against children and ensure no childhood has to be tainted by physical punishment again.' In June, as part of debate on the Bill, Conservative peer Lord Jackson of Peterborough warned that introducing a smacking ban in England would be 'disproportionate and heavy-handed'. He argued 'reasonable chastisement' was harmless and calls to abolish it as a defence for punishing a child risked 'criminalising good and caring parents, as well as overloading children's services departments'. But, in the wake of the murder of 10-year-old Sara Sharif in Woking in 2023, the UK's four children's commissioners jointly called for a wholesale smacking ban, describing the current situation where there is a legal defence in some nations as 'outdated and morally repugnant'. Sara's father – jailed for life in December 2024 alongside her stepmother for the little girl's murder – had claimed in a call to police after fleeing England that he 'did legally punish' his daughter and that he 'beat her up too much'. The children's commissioners insisted 'loving, well-meaning' parents have no need to be concerned about a change in the law. Lynn Perry, chief executive of Barnardo's, said: 'Violence against children is unacceptable – and yet children continue to have less legal protection against physical assault than adults. That cannot be right. This new data shows that most parents agree. 'Physical punishment like smacking is harmful to a child's health and development, and there's strong evidence that it influences their attitudes toward violence. At Barnardo's, we see first-hand how vital it is for children to feel safe and nurtured by those around them and to develop positive, healthy relationships. 'We have long campaigned for a change in the law to give children equal protection from assault and continue to call for action. It's time for all children to be legally protected from all physical punishment everywhere in the UK.' Commenting on the poll, Professor Andrew Rowland, officer for child protection at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said: 'This latest research makes it clear that physical punishment has no place in modern parenting. 'Health professionals stand firmly with parents and young people in recognising that physical punishment is not only outdated and unjust, but also harmful to children's health and wellbeing. 'We urge the Government to listen to parents, young people, health professionals and the wider public and to finally remove the outdated and unfair 'reasonable punishment' defence.' A Department for Education spokesperson said: 'The landmark Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, a key part of our plan for change, represents the most transformative piece of child protection legislation in a generation, including wholesale reform of the children's social care system and better information sharing between education, health, and social workers to stop vulnerable children falling through the cracks. 'While we are looking closely at the legal changes made in Wales and Scotland in relation to smacking, we have no plans to legislate at this stage.'
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Where have all the upper-class Tories gone?
A currently fashionable conservatism is militantly against Ukraine and, by more cautious implication, pro-Russia. We who disagree are, I quote Matthew Parris in these pages last week, 'prey to the illusion that the second world war was a template for future conflict, and Hitler a template for Putin'. Others put it more unkindly, speaking of 'Ukraine brain' as a mental affliction among the Cold War generations. One should not project the entire second world war on to now, but some similarities with the 1930s are undeniable. Dictator exploits resentment at what he says is an unequal treaty after defeat; claims land in various places as the true property of his people; occupies some of it, changing borders by the threat of force, later by direct force; keeps demanding more; keeps threatening. The European democracies mostly dislike what is happening, but understandably wish to appease. As it all gets nastier, some incline to criticise the behaviour of the victim nations and their leaders (Benes then; Zelensky now) and downplay the sins of the aggressor. Matthew, for example, wants Zelensky to 'get off his high horse' without noticing that Putin's horse is much, much higher. The United States wants as little to do with it as possible. Dictator has a much firmer purpose than his democratic opponents, so he wins. At first, only the direct victim suffers. Later, all of us do. This argument is not exact, but it is not idiotic either. Elsewhere in this week's issue, Ursula Buchan writes about her grandfather John Buchan's time at The Spectator, the grounding for his career in political life and as a celebrated novelist. His very first article for the paper (20 January 1900) was called 'The Russian Imperial Ideal'. Buchan identified 'the two parties in the [Tsarist] government… both vigorous, one demanding internal reform, the other seeking external empire. At present she seems to have chosen for the latter, but… an Empire and commercial supremacy can only be built upon a genuine and healthy national life, and Russia, while she has the materials for such a life, has hitherto neglected to use them. Militarism and economic reform, where the former is so triumphant and the latter so urgent, are the lion and the lamb which will never lie down together.' They never did, though Gorbachev tried. The lion ate the lamb long ago. Tom Gordon, a Liberal Democrat MP, is leading a campaign to recruit more working-class people for parliament. He praises the few 'salt of the earth guys who are making it all happen' in his part of England (Harrogate and Knaresborough: not, it must be said, a super-working-class area). Mr Gordon does not confront the problem that nowadays the working class has been almost abolished, partly by the largely good trend of upward mobility and partly by the largely bad one of a welfare system which pays the poorly educated not to work. Looking at the 2024 intake of MPs, I would say that by far the greater problem is that so many, whatever their family roots, came into politics through politics/activism/politicised charity work, and know about nothing else. Looking at the question in class terms, I would say the more noticeable absence is members of the upper class. Nearly 40 years ago, I commissioned a scholarly piece (The Spectator, 3 May 1986) by the late Hugh Montgomery-Massingberd called 'The Descent of Tory Man'. It analysed the social class of all Conservative MPs at that Thatcher high tide and found 19 (including William Waldegrave, Nicholas Ridley, Lord Cranborne and Nicholas Soames) in the top social class, 33 in the second highest, 86 in the third, and the majority (there were 392 Tories at that time) in classes four to ten. Trying to apply that analysis to the present 121 Conservatives, I can think of only one – the wise and public-spirited Jesse Norman – who could be described as upper-class, and even he might have reached only class 2 according to Massingberd's exacting criteria. What applies to the Tories applies, a fortiori, to all MPs. So when parliament is more despised than at any time since the Great Reform Bill, it is also the least aristocratic it has ever been. Are these two phenomena related? I wish all the argument about pronouns had been raging when I was a teenager. That was the time when it first became commonplace to address God as 'You' in the liturgy and in translations of the Bible. I was against the change then because it sacrificed beauty, but I could never quite answer those who said it was better to speak to God less formally and more intimately. In my then ignorance, I did not know that 'Thou', as is the case with the second person singular in many other languages, was historically the more intimate and loving form, and so I did not understand that the plural 'You' was the more distant one. The use of 'You' is also theologically inaccurate, since it grammatically implies that there is more than one God. The Trinity, after all, are not some things. It is one thing. Recently, I booked a hotel room in the north of England. We could have 'de luxe' or 'superior'. It was explained to me that superior, in this context, meant inferior: de luxe had been recently 'refreshed'; superior had not. We were inclined to take 'de luxe', but then I asked whether de luxe had baths. No, it had only walk-in showers. Superior, however, had baths. So we took superior, thereby saving more than £100. This must be the first generation in human history which has paid less for a room with a bath than for one without. Why the change? I can think of four possible reasons: 1) Americans prefer showers. 2) Showers save water, and therefore the planet. 3) Showers save space, and therefore property cost. 4) Many customers are too old or fat to get out of baths. In another generation, will baths be objects only of historical interest, like mangles?
