Terminally ill say four-year timeframe for assisted dying service is too long
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
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump Plots New Power Grab as He Takes Control of D.C. Police
President Donald Trump defiantly insisted Wednesday that he did not need Congress's blessing to keep control of Washington, D.C.'s police indefinitely. The president was asked if he was talking to Congress about extending his control of the Metropolitan Police beyond 30 days after he declared Monday he was federalizing the force to combat crime in the nation's capital. 'If it's a national emergency, we can do it without Congress,' Trump claimed. 'But we expect to be - to Congress - before Congress very quickly.' The president made the comment while speaking to reporters at the Kennedy Center. While Trump claimed he did not need Congress, he said he would be engaging Republicans to address crime. 'We're going to need a crime bill that we're going to be putting in, and it's going to pertain initially to DC,' the president said. He then went on to suggest he would indeed be asking for 'long term extensions because you can't have 30 days.' The president also noted that he 'never went to Congress for anything' when it came to the border, stating 'I just said 'close the border.'' 'I don't want to call a national emergency. If I have to I will. But I think the Republicans in Congress will approve this pretty much unanimously,' Trump said moments later. Trump has the authority as president to take control of the city's police force under Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. However, it does have limitations. The emergency control will expire in 30 days, unless Congress passes a law to extend it. Trump called for increased law enforcement as he looked to crackdown on crime in DC. He has also complained about seeing homeless encampments along city streets. As part of the effort, some 850 law enforcement officers and agents surged out across the city Monday night, the White House said on Tuesday. The president has also called in the National Guard. Service members could be seen starting to arrive at the National Mall Tuesday night, and more are expected. Trump also again suggested he could take action in other blue U.S. cities on Wednesday. 'That's going to serve as a beacon for New York Chicago, Los Angeles and other places all over the country,' he said. DC Mayor Muriel Bowser has pushed back on the president's law enforcement takeover, arguing violent crime in the city is at its lowest level in 30 years. She has also been advocating for DC statehood this week for the more than 700,000 residents who live in the nation's capital. Trump on Wednesday blasted the idea of DC statehood as 'ridiculous.' 'We want to straighten this place out. Statehood is ridiculous. It's unacceptable,' he said.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Philip Cross: Why is youth unemployment so high? Government policies
Young people have borne the brunt of the recent deterioration in Canada's labour market. Youth unemployment usually runs at about twice the rate for adults, reflecting young workers' lower productivity and inexperience at searching for a job. But now it's nearly three times the rate for adults, which puts it at 'crisis levels' according to some commentators. The likely cause of this crisis? Government programs that have raised the minimum wage and sharply increased the supply of low-skilled foreign workers. The unemployment rate for those between 15 and 24 years of age shot up 5.4 percentage points from its recent low of 9.2 per cent in March 2023 to 14.6 per cent in July 2025. Over the same period unemployment for those 25 years and older rose just 1.3 points, from just 4.4 per cent to 5.7 per cent. The rise in their unemployment does not fully convey the deterioration of labour market conditions for young people, however. Disappearing job opportunities discouraged many from even looking for a job, which means they aren't counted as either in the labour force or unemployed. Moreover, in July a majority of those who did have jobs were in part-time, not full-time work, only the second month that's ever happened outside the 2020 COVID pandemic. Among those 15- to 24-year-olds, teenagers have been the biggest losers in the labour market lately. Their unemployment rate has nearly doubled over the past two years, from 11.9 per cent to 20.0 per cent, a level more typical of Europe's sclerotic labour market rather than North America's usually dynamic one. And, again, many teens have simply dropped out of the labour market, resulting in their participation rate falling from 52.0 to 46.5 per cent. Young people aged 20 to 24 have fared better, with the increase in their unemployment at about three percentage points over the past two years. And their labour force participation rate has remained stable near 78.0 per cent. Why has the labour market for youths, and especially teenagers, deteriorated so badly in recent years? Government policies that raised minimum wages while at the same time allowing a flood of low-skilled foreign workers into the country. Driven by the misguided slogan of providing a 'living wage,' most governments in Canada have raised the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour, double what it was in 2005 and with growth twice the rate of inflation. Many economists, including me in a 2021 paper published by the Fraser Institute, warned that such increases would be devastating for youths, and especially teenagers. Higher minimum wages support increased incomes for only the very small number of adults who are paid it — and if you are 40 years old and still earning the minimum wage, you should probably spend time reflecting on your career choice, your skill set or your motivation. Even as higher wages were pricing young people out of the job market, a surge in the number of low-skilled workers entering Canada meant supply was rising to take their place. Ottawa relaxed the rules governing low-skilled, temporary immigrant workers in 2023, triggering a flood of two million entrants since then. Recognizing it opened the floodgates too wide, the government last fall cut the number to be let in this year and next. And last week it announced it was reviewing its 2024 initiative to allow these temporary foreign workers an easier path to permanent residency. The combined impact of higher minimum wages and a rising supply of low-skilled immigrants has crippled job opportunities for youths, especially teens. When compelled to pay a minimum of $15 an hour or more, employers usually prefer hiring a highly-motivated and more mature immigrant worker over an inexperienced youth with no résumé. Philip Cross: Trump's conspiracy theory about 'rigged' U.S. jobs data doesn't add up Philip Cross: Buckley showed conservatism needs a moral foundation The sudden worsening of labour market outcomes for young people compounds their frustration at being shut out of Canada's prohibitively expensive housing market. It should not have surprised anyone that young Canadians, hoping to remedy the damage caused by government policies, were increasingly open to voting for Pierre Poilievre's Conservative party at the past election. Philip Cross is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Jesse Kline: CUPE made dupes of us all with phoney 'unpaid work' claims
'Canada's biggest airline is hiding a secret,' warned a website campaigning on behalf of Air Canada flight attendants and their union during recent contract negotiations. 'Their cabin crew is being forced to work for free during the most critical moments of your flight experience.' Except it wasn't exactly true that they were being forced to work for nothing, and it was never a secret. In the end, it didn't matter that the Unfair Canada campaign wasn't being completely honest. What mattered was that the union's message — 'Tell Air Canada and the Carney government unpaid work is a true crime' — had its intended effect on Canadians and their elected officials. On Monday, before the labour dispute was resolved, Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu said that the flight attendants' claim that they were forced to work for free when planes weren't in the sky was 'deeply disturbing' and announced a probe into 'unpaid work in the airline sector.' If the inquiry finds the allegation to be well-founded, Hajdu pledged to introduce legislation to outlaw the practice. Whether the announcement was simply a means of placating the labour movement after Hajdu ordered the Canada Industrial Relations Board to force the flight attendants back to work, prompting allegations that the Liberals were siding with management, is an open question. It's very possible that the probe will be swept under the rug now that the airline is resuming operations. But should the government follow through on its promise, it will find that Air Canada's pay structure was the industry standard, and that the practice dates back around four decades. It only became an issue in 2022, when Delta Air Lines agreed to pay its cabin crews for boarding in a bid to prevent them from unionizing. In 2024, the union representing flight attendants at American Airlines lobbied hard for a similar pay structure and announced last August that it had reached an agreement to become 'the first unionized workgroup to lock in pay for boarding.' Workers at Alaska Airlines ratified a similar collective agreement in February. Given this trend, it's no surprise that the Unfair Canada campaign was launched late last year, months before the flight attendants' collective agreement was due to expire on March 31. By making it sound as though your friendly stewardesses were being treated no better than the children at a Bangladeshi garment factory, the union knew it had a winning public-relations strategy. It certainly helped that many press reports repeated the union's claims verbatim. To bolster its cause and increase political pressure, CUPE also commissioned a poll showing that the majority of Canadians sided with the flight attendants (59 per cent) over the company (12 per cent), and that 88 per cent think 'flight attendants should be paid for all work-related duties, not just time in motion.' Yet no one should be shocked that the public tended to support the people who serve them drinks and clean up their children's vomit over the company responsible for their cancelled flights and lost baggage. And some of the survey's findings were based on some fairly loaded questions. The one about compensation, for example, was setup as follows: 'Some people say that because boarding, deplaning, delays and safety checks are all part of a flight attendant's workday, they should be paid for that time. Others say flight attendants' pay should only start once the plane is moving, as is current practice. Which is closer to your own view?' It's little wonder that only 12 per cent of respondents chose the latter. But although these positions may have represented the views of the parties at the bargaining table, it's unlikely that too many Canadians were arguing in favour of unpaid labour at the dinner table. Nor does this question fully encapsulate how flight attendants were paid under the previous agreement. According to a press release issued by Air Canada at the start of the month, 'Time spent onboarding and similar tasks performed on the ground (are) captured within the formula pay defined by the collective agreement, which covers the duty period (commencing one hour prior to flight departure / ending 15 minutes after flight arrival). If the employee is requested to be on duty outside of these times or to perform service to passengers on the ground, the collective agreement provides for additional compensation.' The text of the agreement also says that, 'Where an employee is required to report for duty prior to or remain on duty following the termination of a duty period … s/he shall be paid at one-half of the hourly rate of pay.' Similar terms were offered when employees were required to 'provide meal, bar or beverage service to passengers on the ground.' Other parts of the agreement discuss hourly wages, which started at $25.13 for new hires and rose to $87.01 for some in-flight managers, along with meal allowances and incentives, such as discounted flights, pensions and health benefits. Being a stewardess is certainly not the most lucrative career, but painting them as destitute labourers forced to dumpster dive for food is a bit of a stretch. And although flight attendants can be forgiven for wanting a better deal, let's not pretend as though they didn't agree to the pay structure outlined in the last agreement, or the ones before that. The risk for flight attendants, however, is that if they get too greedy, many of their jobs could one day be automated, at least as soon as someone realizes that much of what they do could be replaced by a vending machine strapped to a Roomba and sent down the aisle to serve food and drinks. Heck, the service on some flights may even improve! Perhaps the solution is to allow them to accept tips. I'm fully aware that we're all sick of being asked to tip every time we reach for our credit cards, but I'd certainly be willing to chip in a few extra bucks if it meant someone would actually come when I press the flight attendant call button and stop giving me excuses about why they can't pour me a double gin and soda. Ultimately, the workers and management settled on a tentative deal that will reportedly guarantee at least an hour of ground pay at half their hourly rate for each flight, with a pay bump of five per cent per year. Which sounds fair enough. But such decisions should always be up to those who are being hired to perform a specific task and the people who are hiring them. Patty Hajdu and her Liberal colleagues should stay on their own runway. National Post jkline@
