Penrith MP indicates he will vote against assisted dying bill
A Cumbrian MP has indicated that he is likely to vote against the assisted dying bill - despite previously voting for it.
The Labour MP for Penrith and Solway Markus Campbell-Savours told the BBC that he still is "a supporter of assisted dying" but said the proposed bill crosses a 'red line' in protecting the vulnerable.
Cumbria's MPs were split on the issue when it was first voted on in parliament with Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington, Labour) and Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and the Solway, Labour) voting for the bill and Julie Minns (Carlisle, Labour), Michelle Scrogham (Barrow, Labour) and Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat) all voting against the bill.
Opponents to changing the law have argued some people could feel pressured to have an assisted death against their will and have called for more focus on improving and ensuring equal access to palliative care.
Campaigners who are terminally ill or have watched loved ones die in pain have called the existing legislation 'unbelievably cruel' and pointed out that animals suffering severely can be legally euthanised.
Since the last vote, Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, has brought forward amendments for a so-called 'judge plus' system, after hearing concerns during expert evidence sessions last month.
She has now proposed a judge-led Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission that she said would give a greater role to experts, including psychiatrists and social workers, in overseeing applications.
The commission would be led by a High Court judge or a senior former judge and receive all applications and reports from two independent doctors, which would then be referred to a three-member panel chaired by what has been described as a senior legal figure.
READ MORE: RSPCA issues warning after cat dies of antifreeze poisoning in Cumbria | News and Star
"I want to see safeguards that will ensure that assisted dying is not overextended to include those in situations where there are alternative ways to improve the quality of their lives," said Mr Campbell-Savours to the BBC.
"I would also be very concerned if legislation produced a situation where people who considered themselves a burden on their families and friends felt pressured to end their life."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Girl, 15, in hospital after 'drug-related' incident
A 15-year-old girl is seriously ill in hospital after she collapsed in a "drugs-related" incident. The teenager fell ill at a bus stop on Leeds Road in Allerton Bywater, near Castleford, on Friday evening. West Yorkshire Police were called by hospital staff at about 19:00 BST to report their concerns and the area around the bus stop was cordoned off. There are not thought to be any suspicious circumstances but the incident is believed to be drugs-related, police said. The force added that the girl remained in a serious but stable condition. Anyone with information is being urged to contact police. Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North. West Yorkshire Police
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
5 lessons on finding truth in an uncertain world
Adam Kucharski is a professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and an award-winning science writer. His book, The Rules of Contagion, was a Book of the Year in The Times, Guardian, and Financial Times. A mathematician by training, his work on global outbreaks has included Ebola, Zika, and COVID. He has advised multiple governments and health agencies. His writing has appeared in Wired, Observer, and Financial Times, among other outlets, and he has contributed to several documentaries, including BBC's Horizon. What's the big idea? In all arenas of life, there is an endless hunt to find certainty and establish proof. We don't always have the luxury of 'being sure,' and many situations demand decisions be made even when there is insufficient evidence to choose confidently. Every field—from mathematics and tech to law and medicine—has its own methods for proving truth, and what to do when it is out of reach. Professionally and personally, it is important to understand what constitutes proof and how to proceed when facts falter. Below, Adam shares five key insights from his new book, Proof: The Art and Science of Certainty. Listen to the audio version—read by Adam himself—in the Next Big Idea App. 1. It is dangerous to assume something is self-evident. In the first draft of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers wrote that 'we hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal.' But shortly before it was finalized, Benjamin Franklin crossed out the words 'sacred and undeniable,' because they implied divine authority. Instead, he replaced them with the famous line, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident.' The term 'self-evident' was borrowed from mathematics—specifically from Greek geometry. The idea was that there could be a universal truth about equality on which a society could be built. This idea of self-evident, universal truths had shaped mathematics for millennia. But the assumption ended up causing a lot of problems, both in politics and mathematics. In the 19th century, mathematicians started to notice that certain theorems that had been declared 'intuitively obvious' didn't hold up when we considered things that were infinitely large or infinitely small. It seemed 'self-evident' didn't always mean well-evidenced. Meanwhile, in the U.S., supporters of slavery were denying what Abraham Lincoln called the national axioms of equality. In the 1850s, Lincoln (himself a keen amateur mathematician) increasingly came to think of equality as a proposition rather than a self-evident truth. It was something that would need to be proven together as a country. Similarly, mathematicians during this period would move away from assumptions that things were obvious and instead work to find sturdier ground. 2. In practice, proof means balancing too much belief and too much skepticism. If we want to get closer to the truth, there are two errors we must avoid: we don't want to believe things that are false, and we don't want to discount things that are true. It's a challenge that comes up throughout life. But where should we set the bar for evidence? If we're overly skeptical and set it too high, we'll ignore valid claims. But if we set the bar too low, we'll end up accepting many things that aren't true. In the 1760s, the English legal scholar William Blackstone argued that we should work particularly hard to avoid wrongful convictions. As he put it: 'It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.' Benjamin Franklin would later be even more cautious. He suggested that 'it is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.' 'We don't want to believe things that are false, and we don't want to discount things that are true.' But not all societies have agreed with this balance. Some communist regimes in the 20th century declared it better to kill a hundred innocent people than let one truly guilty person walk free. Science and medicine have also developed their own traditions around setting the bar for evidence. Clinical trials are typically designed in a way that penalizes a false positive four times more than a false negative. In other words, we don't want to say a treatment doesn't work when it does, but we really don't want to conclude it works when it doesn't. This ability to converge on a shared reality, even if occasionally flawed, is fundamental for science and medicine. It's also an essential component of democracy and justice. Rather than embracing or shunning everything we see, we must find ways to balance the risk that comes with trusting something to be true. 3. Life is full of 'weak evidence' problems. Science is dedicated to generating results that we can have high confidence in. But often in life, we must make choices without the luxury of extremely strong evidence. We can't, as some early statisticians did, simply remain on the fence if we're not confident either way. Whether we're sitting on a jury or in a boardroom, we face situations where a decision must be made regardless. This is known as the 'weak evidence' problem. For example, it might be very unlikely that a death is just a coincidence. But it also might be very unlikely that a certain person is a murderer. Legal cases are often decided on the basis that weak evidence in favor of the prosecution is more convincing than weak evidence for the defendant. Unfortunately, it can be easy to misinterpret weak evidence. A prominent example is the prosecutor's fallacy. This is a situation where people assume that if it's very unlikely a particular set of events occurred purely by coincidence, that must mean the defendant is very unlikely to be innocent. But to work out the probability of innocence, we can't just focus on the chances of a coincidence. What really matters is whether a guilty explanation is more likely than an innocent one. To navigate law—and life—we must often choose between unlikely explanations, rather than waiting for certainty. 4. Predictions are easier than taking action. If we spot a pattern in data, it can help us make predictions. If ice cream sales increase next month, it's reasonable to predict that heatstroke cases will too. These kinds of patterns can be useful if we want to make predictions, but they're less useful if we want to intervene in some way. The correlation in the data doesn't mean that ice cream causes heatstroke, and crucially, it doesn't tell us how to prevent further illness. 'Often in life, prediction isn't what we really care about.' In science, many problems are framed as prediction tasks because, fundamentally, it's easier than untangling cause and effect. In the field of social psychology, researchers use data to try to predict relationship outcomes. In the world of justice, courts use algorithms to predict whether someone will reoffend. But often in life, prediction isn't what we really care about. Whether we're talking about relationships or crimes, we don't just want to know what is likely to happen—we want to know why it happened and what we can do about it. In short, we need to get at the causes of what we're seeing, rather than settling for predictions. 5. Technology is changing our concept of proof. In 1976, two mathematicians announced the first-ever computer-aided proof. Their discovery meant that, for the first time in history, the mathematical community had to accept a major theorem that they could not verify by hand. However, not everyone initially believed the proof. Maybe the computer had made an error somewhere? Suddenly, mathematicians no longer had total intellectual control; they had to trust a machine. But then something curious happened. While older researchers had been skeptical, younger mathematicians took the opposite view. Why would they trust hundreds of pages of handwritten and hand-checked calculations? Surely a computer would be more accurate, right? Technology is challenging how we view science and proof. In 2024, we saw the AI algorithm AlphaFold make a Nobel Prize-winning discovery in biology. AlphaFold can predict protein structures and their interactions in a way that humans would never have been able to. But these predictions don't necessarily come with traditional biological understanding. Among many scientists, I've noticed a sense of loss when it comes to AI. For people trained in theory and explanation, crunching possibilities with a machine doesn't feel like familiar science. It may even feel like cheating or a placeholder for a better, neater solution that we've yet to find. And yet, there is also an acceptance that this is a valuable new route to knowledge, and the fresh ideas and discoveries it can bring.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Labour tiptoed cautiously through its first year - now is the time to escape its own shadow
The strategising and multi-year planning going on ahead of this week's Spending Review is the bread and butter of any well-run economy. A Spending Review shows how resources are being allocated between departments and so indicates the government's "when-push-comes-to-shove" priorities. But this time it will be a "different sort of Spending Review", the chancellor's helpers are saying. That's because with the new government nearly one year old, this Spending Review is also a one-off opportunity to show the private sector and international investors that it has a confident, deliverable vision. But having tiptoed cautiously throughout its first year in office, the question is whether this government can convince those potential investors that the economic vision is real? And will other long-term challenges, such as industrial energy prices, social care costs, and worker illness be prioritised or parked? Some chief executives tell me they cannot fathom why a government with such a huge majority can sometimes appear to be scared of its own shadow. There had been talk of Downing Street "wanting to have fights" over planning for major projects. But companies that have major investors waiting to invest in the factories that could start rolling out the mass adoption of green technologies are wondering whether Downing Street really will back them, given the polls, and possible net zero backlash. "They need to stop playing tiny domestic politics," one boss of a major consumer company told me, as he awaits a convincing solid vision. It is with big investors in mind that the chancellor's focus at this spending review has been on long-term capital spending - that's where the big numbers come in. The proportion of the country's GDP that is being earmarked for capital spending, is 2.7% on a five-year average. If that doesn't strike you as eye-watering, it's worth noting it will be at its highest sustained level for nearly half a century. It will be significantly higher than under Brown-Darling in 2010. In 2000 this number was 0.5%. Of course, allocating significant sums is not a guarantee that the money will be spent effectively, or even at all. Spending on capital is often subject to the rollercoaster of short-term government priorities. In a crisis it tends to be the first thing to get hacked back, because the loss of future buildings or roads or rail lines is less politically troublesome than cutting back a public service or, say, teachers' pay in the here and now. That's why under the chancellor's new borrowing rules, the money can at least be allocated to big capital projects. Her reforms to those rules - keeping them strict on day-to-day spending, but consciously allowing more space for long-term investment - were designed for this. The main goal being future growth. Long-term certainty over the capital sums that are being allocated over the next week or so, could be a gamechanger. Private investment is more likely to follow if there are long-term plans in place, especially after so many years of political uncertainty. As part of all this, the chief secretary to the Treasury is also announcing increases in spending on research and development. That is designed to boost science-led growth. But the marquee project for this announcement will surely be the long-awaited high-speed rail line between Liverpool and Manchester. It is a piece of infrastructure forged in the fires of the UK's industrial heritage, including the world's first inter-city passenger line, and of course Stephenson's Rocket, the original steam locomotive. Now, 200 years on from its launch in 1829, it may well be time for another industrial revolution, of sorts. But make no mistake, the government has still had to make some big choices, even within a more generous capital budget. Most of the increase in defence spending announced last week is in the form of capital spending. When the documents are published on Wednesday, it is possible that some other capital projects will have been squeezed to make room. All departments have also reassessed spending from first principles, as part of a "zero-based" review. In theory there could be entire projects axed. There will also be a lot of "investing to spend less". Using the capital budget to invest in, say, AI scanners in the health service, in a way that ultimately is supposed to save money. The aim, ambitiously put, is to "rewire the state" and "get Britain moving". Why Labour is strengthening ties with China after years of rollercoaster relations UK taxpayers no longer own NatWest - but 17 years on, are banks safer from collapse? The secretive US factory that lays bare the contradiction in Trump's America First plan It is with this in mind, that the chancellor will promise the government has learnt the lessons of capital spending debacles, such as HS2. She believes that by waiting, and carefully preparing an infrastructure strategy, she is making sure the spending will go where it will most boost growth. Freeing up supply, for example in the planning system, is supposed to help the rebuilding boom, but without provoking inflation. Those new borrowing rules that freed up spending on big projects, also mean tight settlements on day-to-day spending. The travails of Elon Musk and Donald Trump show the challenges for G7 countries in managing public finances. And Labour are operating in an environment where some opposition parties are now advocating more radical surgery to the size of the state in the UK. Moreover, when it comes to public spending there is still the long shadow from the pandemic. Demand for acute services and benefits related to ill health and care, or special needs, is eating far into budgets for councils, schools and health. The public seems to expect more from the state since the pandemic, even if it does not want to stump up the taxes to pay for it. So budgetary pressures have not gone away. It is, right now, difficult to square extra welfare spending on winter fuel payments and child benefit, extra defence spending, and sticking to the chancellor's rules without some further tax rises in the autumn. Faster growth numbers, and an upturn in confidence after the series of trade deals, could help make the numbers add up, but there are any number of economic uncertainties out there too. While there have been some strained moments in negotiations with Cabinet colleagues, all parties have already negotiated a mini-Spending Review for this year. But that is not to say the chancellor doesn't have to perform a massive balancing act: juggling demands to keep the short-term budget numbers adding up, while unleashing the long-term investment that could finally get the economy growing again. BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
