Terminally ill say four-year timeframe for assisted dying service is too long
Campaigners have criticised a move to double the length of time before an assisted dying service would have to be up and running if a new law is agreed in England and Wales.
The proposed change, put forward by the MP behind the Bill, has been branded a 'retrograde step' and 'outrageous' by two terminally ill supporters of legalising assisted dying.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is entering the final stages of committee scrutiny, before it is expected to return to the House of Commons for another vote by all MPs, possibly next month.
As it stands, the legislation has an implementation period of two years after it is passed into law for all parts to come into force.
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater has now put forward an amendment, expected to be debated next week, proposing to extend that to four years.
Pro-change group My Death, My Decision said that is an 'unreasonable' amount of time.
Mother-of-two Clare Turner, who has stage four cancer, said the proposed change is 'outrageous for terminally ill people like me'.
She added: 'Every delay means more suffering, more people forced to endure unbearable pain against their will.'
She said she and others 'deserve dignity, not delays'.
In quotes released through the campaign group, fellow terminally ill cancer patient Tim Wardle said the proposed extension 'would be a retrograde step, contrary to the core intent and messages of the Bill – care and choice'.
He said terminally ill people have 'waited far too long for this legislation' already and that 'even a slight delay beyond the two years currently proposed is not fair or reasonable'.
Giving evidence to the committee earlier this year, England's chief medical officer Professor Sir Chris Whitty said he thought two years 'seems a reasonable starting point' but that he does not believe there should be a 'firm deadline', with the focus instead on providing a 'safe, fair and secure service'.
Meanwhile, opponents of the Bill have claimed legislation is being rushed through and has not been exposed to proper scrutiny.
A group of experts, led by disability studies scholarDr Miro Griffiths from the University of Leeds, have written to MPs urging them to vote against a Bill they said is 'beset by issues'.
The group highlighted the change earlier this month, which saw MPs on the committee vote to scrap the previously hailed requirement for a High Court judge to approve all assisted dying applications.
They said the Bill is 'an altogether different and less robust piece of legislation as a consequence of its being removed'.
Ms Leadbeater's proposals to instead establish a voluntary assisted dying commissioner – a judge or former judge – and expert panels featuring a senior legal figure, a psychiatrist and a social worker who would decide on assisted dying applications, are expected to be voted on next week.
In their letter to MPs, Dr Griffiths and other specialists in disability, law and medicine, wrote: 'In our view, Kim Leadbeater's Bill is beset by issues that would translate into serious public harm, should it be passed into law. We would urge you to reflect on the issues above and vote down the Bill at Third Reading.'
Ms Leadbeater has insisted the amendments she has put forward will give her Bill 'additional patient-centred safeguards' by providing a 'range of expertise' via the three-member panel, which she said 'is a strength, not a weakness'.
She said she had 'listened carefully' to expert evidence in January on concerns around the pressure on judicial resources if each case was to automatically go before the High Court, and on calls to involve psychiatrists and social workers in assessing mental capacity and detecting coercion.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Could Merthyr Tydfil be set for an electoral revolution?
"Come check the streets where normal people live. "Kids are smoking, drugs available 24/7. "When you got time check my area condition. "My invitation to the politician." Daljit Singh is the owner of Gurnos sports and social club and also a part-time songwriter - that one is destined for YouTube. "I want to express the situation from here to any leader out there. Please come and have a look," he said. Spend new defence billions in Wales, companies say Miners' strike designs help Welsh fashion find voice Senedd election could be seismic, expert says Last year he put words into action and brought Nigel Farage to Merthyr Tydfil to launch Reform's general election manifesto. Mr Singh wanted to get politicians out of their bubble and speak to people who felt left behind and neglected. The club is the sort of place Nigel Farage would have had in mind, albeit not geographically, when he recently challenged Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to a debate in a northern working men's club. When we visited, Mr Singh and his colleagues were preparing the venue for actual, not verbal, fisticuffs - a 300-seat sell out white collar boxing night. While Reform did not win any Welsh seats in last year's general election, it did come second in 13 of the 32 constituencies. Mr Singh thinks Reform will do well at next year's Senedd election because "people have had enough of being let down on so many things. Why not try something new?" He added people who were struggling to get by found it "unfair" to see money being spent on migrants who had crossed the English Channel. Outside the club, in front of a parade of shops, we met Steve Collins, a builder from Troedyrhiw, who had been at the Farage speech. He said he wanted change. "We've had too many promises and nothing coming forward - Labour and the Conservatives are both the same in my opinion," he said. "This has always been a Labour town, but people are getting fed up now... the state of Merthyr," he added. Another woman told us Farage was "straight", that she had voted for him in the past, but that she would probably stick with Labour next year. Recent polling suggests Reform has a chance of becoming the biggest party in the Senedd, although it might struggle to find someone willing to do a post-election deal to form a government. It still does not have a Welsh leader and has not named any candidates. Polling also suggests that Plaid Cymru could be the party to end 27 years of Labour dominance in Cardiff Bay. A local Labour source admitted the party faced a fight but said it needed to shout more loudly about its achievements, mentioning the completed Heads of the Valleys road, the new Metro and improvements at Prince Charles Hospital. Merthyr has long been one of Labour's heartlands and has had a long history of political change and controversy. It returned the first Labour MP in a Welsh constituency, Keir Hardie, in 1900. It was scene of a Jeremy Corbyn leadership rally in 2016, a Yes Cymru pro-independence March in 2019 and has had its share of recent controversies, including delays over armoured vehicles for the Army which are built in the town and issues with an opencast coal mine. It is also one of the areas with the highest benefits claimant rate so is likely to be disproportionately hit by UK Labour government welfare reforms. Most famously Merthyr was where workers rose up against appalling conditions and poor pay in 1831 - a rebellion which became known as the Merthyr Rising. As next May approaches are we looking at another revolution at the ballot box? Across town at Merthyr Tydfil College, a lively politics and governance class left you in little doubt that more political upheaval could be on the way. "We are seeing the overturn of that sort of Labour Welsh order of this guarantee that Wales will always be Labour until the cows come home," said 17-year-old Zack. "I do think Labour takes it for granted with their traditional safe seats. These aren't iron strongholds anymore of Labour," he added. Aaron, also 17, agreed. "We've seen the start of Labour's downfall," he said. "They've become too comfortable with the fact that they've always been voted in in Wales and we're now getting to the point where we're seeing other parties gain support like Plaid Cymru." He added: "I'm seeing a lot of people who have been lifelong Labour supporters and they've now decided that they're going to vote Reform or Plaid because Labour's not in the best interests for people anymore in Wales." While not necessarily supporting Farage, 16-year-old Isobelle and 17-year-old Amber-Rose recognised the Reform leader's appeal. "Whatever Reform say people might gravitate towards them because it is so new and Nigel Farage is so 'in his own way' that it will appeal to people. "We do have strong Labour and Conservative leaders but Nigel Farage does seem to be more prominent," they said. Other topics that cropped up included the "betrayal" of the working class over benefits reform, and the question of fairness. Why did Scotland have powers over the Crown Estate, justice and policing when Wales did not? For these young voters the principle rather than the policy area appeared to count for more. Wales had moved with the times, they argued, and politicians needed to move too. They also thought that Plaid Cymru and Reform were better at getting through to younger voters on social media than Labour. The students agreed that you could sum up next year's election with one word - change. The slogan that propelled UK Labour to a landslide win at the general election last year could be exactly what costs its Welsh colleagues at the Senedd in 2026. In two very different parts of town, predictions for next year were very much the same. What's your Senedd constituency? What does the Senedd do? How do you vote in the Senedd election?
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Time to face the harsh realities of spending orthodoxy
Labour came to power fatuously parroting the word 'change' and yet has shown itself to be the same old tax and spending party it has always been. What it meant was a change of party in office not a change of direction. Not only have taxes gone up but so-called protected spending is set to rise despite record debt levels. Yet if ever a public policy has been tested to destruction surely it is the notion that the NHS will improve if only more money is thrown at it. Even Sir Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, are on record as saying that higher health spending is not the answer to the endemic flaws in the health service and yet another £30 billion is to be announced for the next three years on top of the £22 billion handed over after last year's general election, much of which went on pay and showed nothing in the way of productivity improvement. No mainstream politician is prepared to acknowledge that the problem with the NHS is the fact it is a nationalised industry with all the inherent inefficiencies associated with such. Most other advanced economies in Europe and elsewhere have social insurance systems which work better. But the insistence in Britain of cleaving to the 1948 'founding principle' that treatment should be free at the point of delivery has become a quasi-religious doctrine that few dare challenge. Only Nigel Farage has questioned the wisdom of continuing with a system that patently fails to achieve what others manage to do but has been noticeably quiet on the subject recently because Labour will exploit it mercilessly to see off the Reform people that they will have to pay for something they have always had for free is even more difficult when political parties are prepared to see the health system get worse rather than reform it. The same is true of welfare. Taking benefits from people, even when they are payments introduced just a few years ago like the winter fuel allowance, is hard if the reasons are not explained and the issue is 'weaponised' by opponents. Yet unless the welfare budget is brought under control it will bankrupt the country. If change is to mean anything then we need politicians finally to understand the extent of the country's difficulties and make decisions accordingly. Will we see that from the Chancellor on Wednesday? Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Forcing rich pensioners to pay back winter fuel allowance would be tax ‘nightmare', Reeves warned
Questions have been raised over Rachel Reeves' winter fuel U-turn after it emerged the government plans to reinstate the payments for all pensioners before attempting to claw it back from millions through higher taxes. The chancellor is expected to set out Labour's plans to reverse the controversial policy change at Wednesday's spending review, but fresh questions have been raised over how the government will distribute the payments. Reports suggest Ms Reeves will from this autumn restore the grants, worth up to £300, to the 10 million pensioners who had lost out. But only those in the bottom half of average incomes will keep the payments, with the top half of earners forced to repay the grant through higher tax bills over the course of the year. One option for the threshold at which pensioners are eligible is average household disposable income, currently around £37,000, The Times reported. Such a plan would resemble George Osborne's high income child benefit charge, which sees 1 per cent of total child benefit received taxed for every £100 earned over £60,000. It means that, over whatever threshold Ms Reeves sets for the payments, an amount will be clawed back from those on higher incomes. The plans could cost around £700 million, with the chancellor vowing to set out her plans to pay for the change at her autumn Budget. Dennis Reed, of over-60s campaign group Silver Voices, said the plans 'would be an administrative nightmare and would be likely to draw in many more pensioners into the tax system'. He told The Independent: 'The most cost effective solution is to restore the universal benefit and maybe fiddle around with the higher tax threshold in due course to target 'the millionaires'.' Mr Reed accused the government of 'casting around for ways to show it has not made a complete U-turn while gaining the political credit for doing so'. It comes after pensions minister Torsten Bell said there is no prospect of the winter fuel allowance being restored universally. He said: 'The principle I think most people, 95 per cent of people, agree, that it's not a good idea that we have a system paying a few hundreds of pounds to millionaires, and so we're not going to be continuing with that.' Sir Keir Starmer last month announced his intention to give more people access to winter fuel payments, just months after Labour made the previously universal payment means-tested in one of its first acts after taking office. Speaking in Manchester on Wednesday, Ms Reeves said: 'I had to make decisions last year to restore sound public finances, and that involved a number of difficult decisions around welfare, taxation and also public spending, including the decision to means-test winter fuel payments so only the poorest pensioners, those on pension credit, got it. 'But we have now put our public finances on a firmer footing. The economy is in a better shape, but we have also listened to the concerns that people had about the level of the means-test. 'So we will be making changes to that. They will be in place so that pensioners are paid this coming winter, and we'll announce the details of that and the level of that as soon as we possibly can.' The Treasury and Department for Work and Pensions have been asked to comment.
