Esther Rantzen and terminally ill preacher make case for assisted dying Bill
The broadcaster made a plea to parliamentarians on the eve of Friday's vote to change what she branded a 'current, cruel, messy criminal law'.
The House of Commons will have a debate and vote on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on Friday, which will see it either progress to the House of Lords or fall completely.
Dame Esther, a staunch supporter of Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, has been a prominent voice in the conversation on assisted dying.
Dame Esther Rantzen has been an outspoken advocate for assisted dying (Esther Rantzen/PA)
Last week, Labour MP and Bill opponent, Rupa Huq, pledged to be a voice for the voiceless, noting that the Childline founder and others' views are already well-known.
She added: 'We know that Esther Rantzen wants this. We know (broadcaster) Jonathan Dimbleby wants this.
'But our role is to be voice of the voiceless as well.'
Dame Esther, who is terminally ill with cancer, said the 'truly voiceless' are the terminally ill who face ' an agonising death' and their relatives.
Please allow us terminally ill the dignity of choice over our own deaths. A change in the law cannot come in time for me, but will transform the final days of generations in the future Dame Esther Rantzen
She told the PA news agency: 'This is a crucial debate for the truly voiceless.
'They are the terminally ill adults for whom life has become unbearable and who need assistance, not to shorten their lives but to shorten an agonising death – and their loved ones who under the current law will be accused of committing a crime if they try to assist or even stay alongside to say goodbye.
'These are the truly vulnerable and voiceless who depend on our lawmakers to change our current, cruel, messy criminal law.
'All this Bill allows is choice for desperately ill adults who are dying anyway but want the confidence of knowing that they can ask for help to choose what we all hope for; a quick, pain-free death with good memories left behind as their legacy for those they love.
'Please allow us terminally ill the dignity of choice over our own deaths. A change in the law cannot come in time for me, but will transform the final days of generations in the future. Those who disagree with assisted dying under the new law will have the right to their own choice, please allow the rest of us to have the same right.'
The law in this country failed my father ... the law leads people like my father to make lonely and dangerous decisions Anil Douglas
Dame Esther's words came as a group of terminally ill and bereaved people shared their stories at a press briefing alongside the Labour Bill sponsor, Ms Leadbeater, on Thursday.
Church of England lay preacher Pamela Fisher, who is terminally ill with cancer, made an impassioned speech against the religious arguments made by some who oppose assisted dying.
She said: 'I completely reject the assumption that the sanctity of life requires terminally ill people to undergo a distressing and painful death against their will. I disagree with those that say it is God alone who decides how and when we die.
'Yes, life is a gift from God to be honoured, but it's nonsensical to say that assisted dying is wrong because suffering is part of God's plan for us.'
The Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Vincent Nichols – who is opposed to assisted dying – has previously argued that the suffering of human beings is 'an intrinsic part of our human journey, a journey embraced by the eternal word of God, Christ Jesus himself'.
Meanwhile, Anil Douglas, whose father took his own life having suffered with multiple sclerosis, recalled the trauma of finding him.
He said a six-month police investigation followed, and told the press conference: 'The law in this country failed my father.'
He added: 'The (current) law leads people like my father to make lonely and dangerous decisions. It does not protect against coercion. It does not offer protections or choice for dying people.
'It does not offer terminally ill, mentally competent adults with six months or less to live, the chance to choose a safe and compassionate death when even the very best palliative care is not enough. It leads to lonely, dangerous, traumatic deaths.'
Bill opponents have argued it is not robust enough to protect the most vulnerable against coercion, and others who might choose assisted dying because they feel they are a burden.
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
41 minutes ago
- The Independent
Assisted dying: Why this momentous vote – with such far-reaching consequences
The third reading and final Commons vote on Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on Friday marks a truly historic moment for parliament. The stakes are so high that entrepreneur Declan Ganley has offered a private ambulance to MP Sorcha Eastwood, who is ill with Covid, to get her to the Commons to vote against the Bill. No wonder. It has been almost six decades since MPs have considered a Bill that would cause such a profound and fundamental change in the state's relationship with individuals and society's attitude to life and death. An historic vote In December Ms Leadbeater won a 55 majority on the second reading vote of her Bill, dealing with the principle rather than details, and is expected to carry a reduced majority today, although that is less certain than it was before. If she is successful then the state, for the first time, will be licensed to end people's lives if they wish it and if the circumstances allow. Doctors will be allowed to offer it as an alternative to people who have been given six months left to live. What factors will MPs be considering? The lack of certainty on the vote is partly fueled by the fact that a number of MPs who voted for the principle made it clear that they were allowing the debate to be had and would reserve judgment on the final vote. The debate in fact has moved on from one of principle - which only a minority oppose - to one of practicalities. The questions faced by MPs include: Can such a law be introduced to allow those with genuine terminal illnesses who wish to end their lives to do so without exposing the weak, poor and vulnerable to coercion to end their lives? Can the so-called tight restrictions be prevented from expanding beyond that through medical practice, judicial intervention or further legislation? Will this end up being a means for saving costs on the care centre and the NHS? Are the safeguards strong enough to ensure that the new law will not be abused? MPs changing their minds The reason that the vote has become tighter is because a growing number of MPs are concerned about the potential answers to those questions. The only issue will be whether that is enough to block the Bill. Based on votes on the amendments as well as known supporters and opponents, the predictive voting model used by opponents of assisted dying gives Ms Leadbeater a majority of up to 15, ranging to a defeat of the Bill by a majority of five. Very close. Key to the debate will not be the heartbreaking stories of people suffering in their final months, or celebrity voices like Esther Rantzen. They have already had their effect. More important will be the big change to the Bill brought by Ms Leadbeater which means a judge in court will not have to sign off, as originally laid out in the second reading vote. Instead, there will be an expert panel led by a judge or KC but not with the same legal authority. It is worth noting that the judicial safeguard was cited by more than 100 MPs in the first debate. The 'slippery slope' argument The other issue at play will be whether this Bill is a full stop to the issue or is something that will unleash a loosening up of the law over time. The lesson from the then Liberal MP David Steel's abortion legislation in 1967 will play a part in the decision-making of a number of MPs, who will be considering the so-called 'slippery slope' issue of an apparently tightly worded piece of legislation expanding its reach over time. Just this week we have seen MPs vote by a large majority to decriminalise abortion – effectively allowing it up to birth without criminal consequences from the 24 weeks (six months) already legislated for. But more important will be the experience of other countries where assisted dying has been legalised. Ms Leadbeater has been at pains that this is a specifically British Bill. However, in Canada, Oregon in the US, the Netherlands, and New South Wales in Australia the legislation has expanded beyond terminal illness to include mental health and other issues. Ms Leadbeater in fact highlighted a case of a couple who decided to end their own lives in Australia after 70 years of marriage even though terminal illness was not a factor. How the debate will unfold She will argue on Friday though that her Bill has been strengthened since November. Opponents will point out that she has rejected safeguards on eating disorders, mental health, the requirement of people actually suffering pain and many other apparently reasonable checks to the process. She had also opposed an amendment preventing doctors recommending assisted dying to children, the one defeat she has suffered so far. Many have consistently argued that a private members bill is not sufficient to debate something that will have such a profound effect on the country. Indeed, 52 Labour MPs asked Keir Starmer, a supporter of assisted dying, to give more time for further scrutiny, an appeal he rejected. The issue today will be whether all these questions and issues will mean there are enough MPs to have second thoughts from their vote in November to overturn a 55-majority. If the Bill is defeated then it will not come back before the next election, if Ms Leadbeater wins then it will have cleared its most important hurdle and a battle in the Lords awaits where many of the issues will be debated again.
Telegraph
43 minutes ago
- Telegraph
This assisted dying Bill must not pass
Tomorrow, MPs will vote on whether Kim Leadbeater's assisted dying Bill should proceed to the House of Lords. They will do so after a process which has been manifestly inadequate for a matter of such gravity. The decision to pursue this monumental shift in the relationship between doctor and patient, citizen and state through the means of a Private Member's Bill, and Sir Keir Starmer's unwillingness to deviate from the timetable for debating such a measure, meant that the first vote on the Bill took place after just five hours of discussion. The Committee Stage subsequently saw the Bill which MPs had initially voted on change substantially. The 'strongest set of safeguards and protections in the world' with 'two medical professionals and a High Court judge' overseeing each case were dropped in favour of a panel including a lawyer, psychiatrist and social worker. Professional organisations, meanwhile, began to come out against the proposals. The Royal College of Pathologists has objected to the practical implications for its members, the Royal College of Psychiatrists that those suffering from 'very treatable' mental disorders could be eligible for the process and the Royal College of Physicians the risk that 'patients may choose assisted dying because they fear their needs would not be met, by services that are currently not adequate'. It is not necessary to take a position on the principle of assisted dying to take a position on the Bill that is currently before the House of Commons. A rushed parliamentary process has produced a framework riddled with flaws, not the least of which is a danger that young people with anorexia could become eligible through the loopholes left in its wording. Any parent who has watched their child struggle with this disease would expect the state to be on their side in a life and death struggle; a piece of legislation which could do the opposite is unfit for purpose. There is no shame in voting for a Bill at the Second Reading in the hope it might be improved. There would be, however, in voting to make it law when it is clear that it remains fundamentally flawed. MPs should reject this Bill.
Daily Mail
43 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Doctors told my Nana she had a short while left. They were wrong. She defied the odds and lived for almost a decade. That's why I'll be voting AGAINST the assisted dying bill: ROBERT JENRICK
Robert Jenrick has made an emotional appeal against assisted dying, as MPs prepare for a momentous vote on whether to let the terminally ill end their own lives. Writing for the Daily Mail below, Mr Jenrick reveals how he helped look after his grandmother, Dorothy, as a teenage boy – and how she continued to bring joy to the family as she defied a terminal diagnosis for nearly a decade. The Shadow Justice Secretary says the prospect of legalising assisted dying 'fills me with dread', adding: 'My Nana felt like she was a burden. I know how much she hated the indignity she felt at having to ask my Mum or us to help her with basic needs. 'People like her – and there are many such people – may consider an assisted death as another act of kindness to us. How wrong they would be.' He goes on: 'Our society pays little regard to end of life care. We need to do much more as a country to help the elderly, like my Nana, in their final years. 'But my experience has taught me that there can be dignity in death, and that even in someone's twilight years, there is joy to be extracted from life. 'So I'll be voting No. And as I do so, I'll be thinking of my great pal – my Nana, Dorothy.' The appeal comes as MPs prepare for a Commons showdown over the contentious issue tomorrow. MPs will hold a final vote tomorrow afternoon on whether to press ahead with the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would make it legal to help someone end their own life in certain circumstances for the first time. It will apply only to those with a terminal illness and a diagnosis giving them fewer than six months to live, although critics warn it could be 'the thin end of the wedge'. Labour MP Kim Leadbeater said she was confident the Bill would pass. But campaigners opposed to the legislation last night said the vote was on a 'knife-edge'. The Bill cleared its first Commons hurdle in November with a comfortable majority of 55 votes. But some MPs have suggested they will switch their votes today or abstain. The original legislation has now been amended dozens of times. Ms Leadbeater herself has tabled a further 37, mostly technical amendments to be considered today, while opponents will launch a last-ditch bid to tighten up the Bill, including by barring its use by people suffering from anorexia. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch labelled it a 'bad bill' that will not deliver and urged Conservative MPs to follow suit. 'This has been a free vote. I'm somebody who has been previously supportive of assisted suicide,' Mrs Badenoch said. '[But] this Bill is a bad Bill. It is not going to deliver. It has not been done properly. 'This is not how we should put through legislation like this. I don't believe that the NHS and other services are ready to carry out assisted suicide, so I'll be voting no, and I hope as many Conservative MPs as possible will be supporting me in that.' Former Labour frontbencher Dan Carden became the latest to say he will vote against the Bill after previously abstaining. Mr Carden, leader of the Blue Labour group of MPs, told the Guardian that 'legalising assisted suicide will normalise the choice of death over life, care, respect and love'. He added: 'I genuinely fear the legislation will take us in the wrong direction. The values of family, social bonds, responsibilities, time and community will be diminished, with isolation, atomisation and individualism winning again.' Tory sources said that Rishi Sunak, who backed the Bill at its first stage, is likely to be one of many MPs who decide to miss tomorrow's vote. Downing Street would not say whether Keir Starmer, who backs the principle of assisted dying, will vote. One government insider described the legislation, which has been introduced as a private member's bill, as 'a mess'. 'Even among people who support assisted dying, there are a lot who are not sure this was the best way of going about it,' the source said. 'We would have been better to have let a Royal Commission look at it first.' Supporters of the Bill insist they have put rigorous safeguards in place to prevent vulnerable people being coerced into ending their lives early. Anyone found to have pressured someone to kill themselves could face up to 14 years in prison. But critics warn the protections are too weak – and point to the decision to drop the requirement for all applications to be considered by a High Court judge. The key safeguard was abandoned following warnings it would place too much pressure on court time. Instead, applications will now be considered by a three-person panel featuring a senior legal figure, a psychiatrist and a social worker. A government impact assessment found that within a decade the legislation would see 4,500 people a year end their lives early. It forecast that the premature deaths would save the NHS almost £60million a year in 'unutilised healthcare'. The Government is formally 'neutral' on the issue. Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner are among senior members of the Cabinet who voted against the legislation in November, while Sir Keir and other senior figures such as Rachel Reeves and Yvette Cooper voted in favour. The Government has said it will implement the Bill if it is eventually passed by Parliament. But ministers forced Ms Leadbeater to accept an implementation period of up to four years because of concerns it will prove difficult in practice. My Nana felt like she was a burden. People like her may consider an assisted death as an act of kindness to us... how wrong they would be By Robert Jenrick It was never the plan for my Nana, Dorothy, to live with us. She'd moved from Liverpool to a sheltered flat near our home outside of Wolverhampton to be close to Mum and Dad. But her terminal emphysema made that impossible at times. It was a dreadful thing, leaving her constantly struggling to breathe, reliant on powerful inhalers and later oxygen canisters. So, after a hospital stay, when I was a teenager, she came to our house to recuperate for 'a few weeks'. She ended up staying for years. Her mind remained razor sharp even to the end, but her body gave up. The condition left her barely able to walk down a corridor or across a room. She was in considerable discomfort and often bedbound. Throughout all that, though, her dignity was astonishing. Immaculately turned out. Neatly dressed. Hair coiffed. Every single day. First diagnosed with emphysema, then cancer, doctors gave her a short while to live. They were wrong. She defied the odds and lived for almost a decade. Throughout, my Mum primarily, but also my Dad, my sister and I were her carers. Fetching prescriptions, changing beds, running her to doctors' appointments. There was nothing by way of help. In fact, the day my grandmother died, my Mum came home to a message from the council saying that her condition was not yet serious enough to warrant their support. After Nana became seriously unwell, my mother was loath to leave her side. Looking back, Mum showed a saintlike devotion. She put her whole life on hold for years, as so many carers across the country do. She received no recompense, no reward. This was a duty of love. A multi-generational household has its ups and downs. Teenagers and octogenarians aren't always natural housemates. She found our noise, robust family debates and occasional parties difficult and wasn't shy about saying so. With only one television, battles over my desire to watch teenage comedies and her desire to watch Emmerdale or Corrie raged for years. But there were many happy moments too. Long discussions about the past, the news, and politics, as we sat completing the Daily Mail crossword every day. She encouraged me to go to university and make the most of the opportunities she missed leaving school at 13. Watching her deteriorate was heartbreaking. It affected us all. There was something particularly tragic about someone so sharp, so witty, so aware of the world, stuck in a failing body. Increasingly, she felt a burden. She prized what remained of her independence and hated making a fuss. None of this came easily to her. In her youth, she'd done remarkable things like serving as a volunteer fire warden during the Blitz around St Paul's Cathedral. She'd known the tough times and faced them all with a quiet stoicism. The days before she died were terrible to watch. By then, each breath had become painful, and talking a struggle. It hurts beyond words to see someone you love in that state. I'll always remember the last time we saw each other. I went to see her in hospital. I held her hand and we spoke a little. I kissed her cheek as I left. She whispered, 'we've been great pals, haven't we?' We had. Tomorrow, I'll cast my vote on the Assisted Dying Bill. The legislation lacks basic safeguards. It would allow patients with anorexia to end their life without telling their families. The representative bodies of Pathologists, Psychiatrists, and Palliative doctors all oppose it. Our courts are bound, under human rights challenges, to expand eligibility yet further. The safeguards our courts were supposed to provide when the Bill was first proposed, and which I warned at the time were utterly impractical to deliver, have been stripped out altogether. Then there is the matter of how hard it is to predict when someone might die. This law is meant to only apply to those with less than six months less to live. But speak to any doctor and they'll tell you just how hard that is to predict. The doctors told my Nana that she had just a short while left. They were wrong, like they are in many cases. She lived for almost a decade until her death at the grand old age of 94. With assisted dying legalised, inevitable mistakes like this would be too terrible to contemplate. But for me, it's the examples around the world where assisted dying is legal that prove it's a bad idea. In Oregon, under 30 per cent of the patients dying by assisted dying do so because they're in physical pain. The overwhelming majority die because they fear 'losing autonomy' or feel a 'burden on family, friends and caregivers.' These numbers are the same just about everywhere data is collected. That fills me with dread. My Nana felt like she was a burden. I know how much she hated the indignity she felt at having to ask my Mum or us to help her with basic needs. People like her, and there are many such people, may consider an assisted death as another act of kindness to us. How wrong they would be. It's easy to make laws that work for 80 per cent of people. It's very hard to make them work for everyone. It's Parliament's role to represent that minority, but the Assisted Dying Bill leaves them exposed. There will be people – we all know them in our lives – who are shy, who have low self-esteem, who have demons within them who will feel societal pressure to end their life early. I know plenty of these people. They are often poor. They are vulnerable. They are lonely. Parliament must be their protector. But this Bill fails to uphold that duty. Thousands of people will lose months, if not years, of their life to avoid causing hassle for their family. Thousands more will be haunted by the thought of whether they should do so too. If it wasn't obvious from the data, we know it instinctively. Our society pays little regard to end of life care. We need to do much more as a country to help the elderly, like my Nana, in their final years. But my experience has taught me that there can be dignity in death, and that even in someone's twilight years, there is joy to be extracted from life. So tomorrow, I'll be voting no. And, as I do so, I'll be thinking of my great pal – my Nana, Dorothy.
