'We need to get the assisted dying law right'
"If it means that we have to delay it to get it right, then that is what needs to happen."
This is what Catie Fenner from Didcot, Oxfordshire, whose mother travelled abroad to end her life in 2023, said about the delayed implementation of the Assisted Dying Bill.
MPs backed the bill that would give terminally ill and people with severe physical or mental illness in England and Wales the right to choose to end their own life in November 2024. But current UK law prevents people from asking for medical help to die.
Ms Fenner said she believed campaigners and opposition should work together to ensure the bill "is about choice and one of the most robust in terms of safeguards in the world".
Her mother Alison was diagnosed with the incurable motor neurone disease (MND) in June 2022.
"She made the decision very quickly that she would not want to see the disease through to the end due to the horrendous state that your body ends up in."
Ms Fenner said Alison took out membership of Dignitas and went to Switzerland in February 2023.
She said her mother had had "the peaceful death that she wanted" but it had been "a horrendous ordeal" for her and the family.
They even had to keep it a secret even from the closest family members, which caused "one of the biggest stresses".
"If anybody found out and felt against it, they could have stopped her from going," she said.
"It would have meant that [we] could have got in trouble for it."
Ms Fenner described her mother as "an incredibly independent person who knew her own mind", so initially, her decision had come as no surprise.
"But then the gravity of the situation came in of exactly what it meant - it was one of those things that you hear about that doesn't happen to you."
But she said that since they had told friends and family, "the support has been incredible".
"For those that knew my mum, they understood her decision.
"It has helped us to not completely overcome the trauma and everything we've been through, but it certainly helps to have their love and support around us."
What is assisted dying and how could the law change?
The Assisted Dying Bill has evoked fear in some that it could be vulnerable to misuse, or that people could be coerced into ending their lives early.
Others have called for the change to be made so that they have the option to die by choice in their country.
Since MPs voted in favour of it, changes have been made to the bill including a new commission and a panel system to oversee application, including Oxfordshire's Sean Woodcock.
That, however, means it could be four years before the law is fully implemented.
Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP bringing the bill expressed disappointment over the timeline but added that the "four-year backstop" did not mean it could not be implemented before then.
Ms Fenner, who has been involved in the Dignity in Dying campaign, attended a committee meeting on the proceedings on Tuesday.
"I have a lot of respect for the opposition and believe that we must work with them in order to ensure this bill is about choice and one of the most robust in terms of safeguards in the world," she said.
"If that means that we have to delay it to get it right and to make sure it's safe and everything's implemented properly, then that is what needs to happen."
Proposed laws to give terminally ill adults the right to choose to end their life have been agreed in the Isle of Man, which is part of the British Isles.
You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Swiss clinic helps grieving mum to die in secret
MND sufferer backs amendment to assisted dying bill
Tears, hope and fear as assisted dying bill passed
BBC Action Line
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Embrace private healthcare to fix the NHS, says former Boots boss
The former boss of Boots has urged the Government to embrace private medical care to fix the NHS, as he backed plans to inject tens of billions of pounds into the struggling health service. Sebastian James, the former Bullingdon Club member who endorsed Labour last year, said Rachel Reeves is right to propose a £30bn funding boost for the NHS as part of her upcoming spending review. However, he urged ministers to use the cash to 'grasp the nettle of private provision', as he said that easing pressure on cash-strapped NHS hospitals was key to reducing waiting lists. Mr James is already working with the NHS to help outsource cataract surgeries as the chief executive of European eye clinic chain Veonet, which runs the SpaMedica business in the UK. But he said Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, must go further and faster on working with the private sector after waiting lists recently rose for the first time in seven months. The backlog now stands at 7.42m, according to data released for the end of March. 'We need radical change that can be achieved by releasing a measurable sum of money,' Mr James, the son of the hereditary peer the 5th Baron Northbourne, told The Telegraph. 'We need a more commercial approach. We have to grasp the nettle of private provision. We understand people's hesitation, but we want to see what's best for the patient.' The suggestion echoes ideas put forward by Richard Tice, Reform UK's deputy leader. He has called for the NHS to buy millions more appointments from the independent sector to help address waiting lists, claiming it could help to clear the appointment backlog within two years. This would go further than the Government's current pledge to offer up to a million extra appointments in private hospitals. Yet such ideas are controversial as they will stoke fears of creeping privatisation of the NHS and raise concerns about potential profiteering. Mr James said: 'There are questions about private companies making money. But it's all about how do you square that? 'There are two key things. One, it will still be free at the point of use. And two, the price will be cheaper than what is offered by the public healthcare system.' Mr James has already held talks with Whitehall officials about his plans for the NHS and he said the Chancellor is right to unleash a significant one-off sum. 'You should borrow to pay for it,' said Mr James, suggesting that £20bn or £30bn would barely move the dial when it comes to the country's £2.8 trillion debt pile. However, it comes at a time when the Chancellor is already facing a struggle to balance the books. Ms Reeves will this week deliver her spending review, which is widely expected to unlock an extra £30bn for the NHS over a three-year period. That will be at the expense of other public services, as she is also plotting real-terms cuts to day-to-day spending across many Whitehall departments. Such pressures have emerged because of the Chancellor's fiscal rules, which prevent her from borrowing to fund day-day-day spending. However, Mr James believes that borrowing to fix the waiting list crisis would do far greater good than harm. He said that SpaMedica's role in providing eye services for the NHS should be a blueprint for ministers to work from, as the company claims to have helped cut waiting times for cataract surgery from 18 months to two weeks since Covid. It now provides around 70pc of eye care referrals from the NHS, and last year helped to restore the sight of around 200,000 patients. While it has helped to cut waiting times, SpaMedica is one of many private cataract clinics facing claims of profiteering after they allegedly inflated costs for procedures. A leaked document from the Health Department, first reported by The Sunday Times, alleged that SpaMedica classed its patients as 'higher complexity', which led to procedures being more expensive than they needed to be. Campaigners point to the fact that SpaMedica's profits rose from £63.9m to £71.8m in its last financial year, which they say is proof of the company taking the taxpayer for a ride. SpaMedica has denied any wrongdoing. However, such allegations reflect the fierce debate surrounding privatisation of the NHS, with many households uncomfortable with the prospect of independent providers making a profit while providing medical services, even if they are free for patients. Mr James, who ran Boots from 2018 to 2024, is adamant that ministers must ignore such complaints if they are to have any hope of reducing waiting lists. 'We have cut waiting times down from 18 months to two to three weeks,' said Mr James. 'We have eaten away our waiting list.' This is particularly key for Sir Keir Starmer, who has pledged that 92pc of NHS patients will get an appointment within 18 weeks by the end of the current parliament in 2029. Ultimately, Mr James argues that private healthcare must be embraced because it is far more efficient than the NHS. He said that SpaMedica clinics carry out more than 20 cataract surgeries a day, which is almost double that of NHS hospitals. The fees are also cheaper, he said, as each cataract operation costs SpaMedica £980, compared to around £1,400 on the NHS. 'We've shown that we can do it in our industry, but we need to broaden it out,' he said. 'We could take it area by area, whether that be knee replacements or treating melanomas. 'By working with private healthcare providers, the solution is to save the NHS money. 'We understand people's hesitation, but we want to see what's best for the patient. We're not talking about eradicating the NHS, it's about a partnership.' 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
19 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
3 days ago
- Yahoo
The NHS truths the Left don't want you to hear
Until very recently, Health Secretary Wes Streeting tried to market himself as a radical health reformer, who is not afraid to poke sacred cows. While his reform-minded rhetoric always remained at a highly-abstract and general level, Streeting deserved some credit for it, because he did not have to do this. He had the courage to say things which he knew would rub some people up the wrong way, not least the Corbynite wing of his own party. Sadly, that brief period of NHS candour is now officially over. Streeting, the self-styled reformer, is no more. He and his colleagues have fully retreated into their comfort zone. During the recent local election campaign, Labour distributed a leaflet that showed a mock medical bill, and a doctor holding up a credit card reader. The message was clear: vote for us, because this is what the other lot want to do to you. On Twitter/X, Labour are now frequently posting dire warnings about the alleged evils of insurance-based healthcare systems. This is exactly that old-school NHS cultism which Streeting used to disavow until five minutes ago. It may work for him. The NHS may be falling apart, but the cult around is still going strong. In the eyes of its keenest defenders, the NHS can do no wrong. They have quietly dropped the old cliché about the NHS being 'the envy of the word', and replaced it with a slightly more subtle version, which goes something like this: Once upon a time, the NHS used to be the best healthcare system in the world. But then, from 2010 on, it was systematically defunded. It was deliberately run into the ground, so that it can be privatised more easily. A privatised system would mean luxury healthcare for the rich, and Wild West medicine for the poor. None of these claims are true. Let's have a look at each of them in turn. The NHS was never the best healthcare system in the world. The idea that it ever was can be traced back to a ranking compiled by the Commonwealth Fund, an American healthcare think tank, which relies on a very unusual methodology, in which medical outcomes only account for a fifth of the total score. This matters, because on medical outcomes, the NHS has always been one of the worst-performing healthcare systems in the developed world – as even the Commonwealth Fund study shows. There is no turning point after which the NHS's performance suddenly deteriorated. It was just never good in the first place. At the end of the 2010s, age-adjusted real NHS spending per capita was only marginally higher than it had been in the beginning of the decade. Put differently, the NHS budget only just about kept pace with population growth, population ageing, and inflation. This clearly constituted a slowdown in spending increases compared to the previous decade. But it does not constitute a 'defunding'. In any case: that period of relative spending restraint is already over again. The NHS budget was given a massive boost during the pandemic, which has only been partially reversed. Public healthcare spending in the UK stands at just under 9% of GDP: one of the highest levels in the world. Conspiracy theories about secret plans to privatise the NHS have been around for decades. I wrote a report on this three years ago, for which I went through the news archives, and I found warnings about the NHS's imminent demise from every year since 1980. But somehow, it never happens. The NHS remains an unusually state-centred system. Most healthcare systems, including tax-funded ones, use a mix of public, private for-profit and private non-profit providers. There are no plans – secret or otherwise – to privatise the NHS. More's the pity. Because there is nothing wrong with private healthcare systems. There are good examples of private, insurance-based healthcare systems, most notably in the Netherlands and Switzerland, which are nothing like the dreaded system of the US. These systems cover everybody: poor people are exempt from health insurance premiums and co-payments. Under these systems, rich and poor alike get faster access to medical treatment, and better medical outcomes, than they would on the NHS. The only thing these people don't get is a naff feel-good mythology around their health systems. 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.
