Scottish parliament approves assisted dying bill in key vote
LONDON (Reuters) -The Scottish parliament voted on Tuesday in favour of a bill that would allow people living in Scotland with a terminal illness to take their own lives, bringing the proposal a step closer to becoming a reality in the country.
Ahead of a final vote, the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill will move to a committee stage where it will be scrutinised and amended by members of the Scottish parliament.
If the legislation is passed, Scotland would join countries such as Switzerland, Canada, New Zealand, Austria and Ecuador in allowing assisted dying in certain circumstances.
It comes after a historic vote last year in the British parliament in which lawmakers backed a bill to allow assisted dying in England and Wales.
The Scottish bill would give mentally competent adults who have been diagnosed with a terminal condition the right to end their life, assisted by health professionals.
The legislation would include safeguards such as independent assessments by two doctors and a 14-day cooling-off period. There would be a requirement for those requesting an assisted death to have lived in Scotland for at least a year.
Individuals would need to self-administer the substance that would end their life.
The bill was proposed by Liberal Democrat member of the Scottish parliament Liam McArthur in 2021, and it is the third time that lawmakers in Scotland have voted on such legislation. The last vote was in 2015.
Ahead of the vote, McArthur joined supporters outside the Scottish parliament and said he believed the "political mood has shifted dramatically over the last 10 years".
Polls show a majority of Britons back assisted dying and supporters say the law needs to catch up with public opinion. Opponents say the bill would fail to safeguard those most vulnerable.
Campaign group Better Way said on its website it was concerned the bill, as drafted, could lead to injustices against people with disabilities, those living with dementia and others.
"People would feel pressure to die due to inequality; coercion of vulnerable people could not be ruled out; and eligibility criteria would be challenged in the courts," said Better Way spokesman Miro Griffiths.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
18 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump Has Deployed Troops At Home Like No Other President
President Donald Trump announced on Monday that he would take control of the police force in Washington, D.C. and deploy 800 National Guard troops to quell crime and remove homeless encampments in the city. Flanked by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Attorney General Pam Bondi, Trump said he was deploying troops to 'help reestablish law, order and public safety' in the nation's capital, which he claimed had been 'overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals." It comes just months after federal officials announced that violent crime in the city hit a 30-year low. The move is the latest in a string of military deployments on home soil by Trump that experts say represents a marked departure from his predecessors. It comes just two months after Trump deployed California's National Guard to quell protests in Los Angeles over his immigration policies, after the protests had largely died down. William Banks, professor of law at Syracuse University and an expert on the role of the military in domestic affairs, says Trump's move is likely intended as a 'symbolic' show of power, especially after a former DOGE staffer's assault in the city caught his attention. 'Symbolism has always been very important to Trump,' Banks tells TIME. 'Trump wants to clean the city up. He wants to make it look like the White House lawn.' Banks adds that the United States has always been 'unique' in its allocation of law enforcement to civilians and its general refusal to use the military on its own citizens. 'The [British] soldiers in the colonies ransacked people's homes, arrested people without cause, beat people up, stole their papers, [and] violated their privacy, so by the time of revolution and then the Constitution, we didn't have a good feeling about the presence of soldiers on our streets,' Banks says. 'We want our members of our community, our neighbors, people that we know and recognize, in civilian uniform.' Banks acknowledges that the Constitution recognizes there may be 'exceptional circumstances' where a military presence is required domestically, but that Presidents prior to Trump did so more sparingly. He points to what he calls 'rights-promoting deployments' of the National Guard, including by Lyndon B. Johnson to desegregate schools in Alabama and Mississippi. Though Trump focused on D.C., he also hinted that the capital city is just the beginning, mentioning New York City, Baltimore, and Oakland—cities in which he has much less jurisdiction. 'This will go further,' Trump said. 'We are starting strongly with D.C.' Here is where Trump has chosen to deploy federal troops during his two terms. Along the border During Trump's first term, he deployed the National Guard to the U.S.-Mexico border in a bid to cut down on illegal immigration. Trump's first term, much like his second, was defined by his aggressive immigration tactics. At the time, Trump's proclamation justified his deployment of troops by pointing to a surge of apprehensions at the border, while critics said that overall border crossings were at historic lows. This deployment of the National Guard at the border continued during his second term. In May of this year, thousands of National Guard troops were deployed to the Southern Border, escalating his crackdown on immigration. 'National Defense Areas' were established in New Mexico and Texas. Importantly, federal troops have been deployed at the border during previous Administrations, specifically to aid Border Patrol. Trump's expansion of military zones along the U.S. border, though, has empowered the military to further act as a law enforcement body, detaining and searching those who they consider as trespassing in these defense areas. Typically, the President would need Congressional approval for defense areas and the creation of essentially a 170-mile military installation, but the President's Day One declaration of a national emergency on the southern border in an Executive Order allowed him to sidestep this formalization. Black Lives Matter protests, 2020 In May 2020, protests broke out across the country in response to the murder of George Floyd by a police officer. The protests marked one of the largest protest movements in U.S. history, with estimates of as many as 26 million people participating in the call for racial justice. Tens of thousands of National Guard troops in over half of U.S. states were activated by state governors to deal with the Black Lives Matter protests, but Trump also used his own powers to deal with the unrest. In August 2020, Trump deployed federal forces to Kenosha, Wisconsin, to quell protests in the aftermath of the shooting of Jacob Blake by a police officer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also sent hundreds of federal officers to Portland, Oregon, to handle protests, with some reports, including one from the ACLU, claiming that these federal agents grabbed protestors off the streets in unmarked vehicles. Tactical teams of the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) were also sent to Seattle, Washington, though push back by former Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and former Mayor Jenny Durkan eventually led to their withdrawal. In D.C., though, Trump, acting as Commander-in-Chief, deployed National Guard members from several states, despite public criticism from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser. Trump's National Guard in D.C. also notoriously utilized tear-gas and rubber bullets against these Black Lives Matter protestors to disperse the demonstration and make room for a photo-op at St. John's Episcopal Church, which had been vandalized the night before during protests with a fire in the basement. Eventually, Trump threatened to utilize the Insurrection Act to deploy military forces to suppress the protests, calling the protestors 'terrorists.' Here, though, the Pentagon publicly broke from Trump, as Defense Secretary Mark Esper said he would prefer to not use active duty military on protests analyzed to have been mostly peaceful. Banks notes that Trump, as Commander-in-Chief of D.C., has more authority here than in the states, but adds 'one of the ironies is that in one of the few instances where there really was a violent disturbance inside the district—January 6, [2021]—[Trump] did nothing.' He continued, stating that if Trump had deployed the National Guard during the Jan. 6 insurrection, 'they could have stopped the Capitol rioting in 30 minutes.' Los Angeles, June 2025 President Trump deployed the California National Guard and the Marines in June this year, ostensibly to quell protests in Los Angeles against Trump's aggressive immigration policies and the intense escalation of deportations in the interior by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Trump's deployment of the National Guard came with a Presidential Memorandum that invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which allows for the federal deployment of National Guard forces in limited circumstances, including if 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' When deployed, though, the National Guard was tasked with protecting ICE agents and federal property, and they were not authorized to perform any law enforcement activities. Trump was criticized for the move, with California Gov. Gavin Newsom calling the deployment 'purposefully inflammatory' and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Southern California describing it as 'akin to a declaration of war on all Californians.' Currently, only 300 of the 5,000 troops deployed remain in Los Angeles, as a trial begins over the legality of Trump's deployment in the first place. A California federal judge is to rule whether Trump's use of the troops violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of the military in domestic law enforcement.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's 'pay-to-play' deals blur line between govt. & free market
It seems "pay to play" may be the name of the game for corporate leaders under the second Trump administration. Nvidia (NVDA) and, reportedly, AMD (AMD), will give the US government 15% of their China chip sales. The artificial intelligence (AI) chipmaker deal comes after the Trump administration secured an additional $100 billion investment from Apple (AAPL), which seemed to mitigate the president's tariff threats. Harvard University executive fellow and former Medtronic CEO Bill George and Pangaea Policy founder Terry Haines examine what the deal signals about the state of corporate America under Trump and how the president is blurring the lines between government and free-market capitalism. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Catalysts. And Bill, I I want to get your perspective on how you think Jensen Wong has handled the president? Or has he, or has been handled by the president, I guess you could say, um with his various meetings in Washington and sort of trying to finesse things in NVIDIA's direction. Well, he's been very astute at working with President Trump. He's made these concessions. Uh he very very much wants to do more business in China. Intel in the past has done exactly the same thing. Uh I think if they're not giving their latest and greatest technology to the Chinese, it may be okay. I'm very wary about giving American technology to China where we're in a big race, particularly AI technology. But uh I think it's, we'll see. My big concern is this is going to spread not just to semiconductor, it's going to spread to other industries. Will we see in pharma where there's a a pay to play so to speak that the US administration will be taking a share of that because the technology research was done in the US. And I I would be very very concerned about that. We seem to be developing much more of a mercantilist approach to our companies and and walking right up if not crossing over the line to separation between government and free enterprise. That's my biggest concern, Julie. And Bill, you know, even if Terry is right that this this particular type of structure of deal is a one-off, to your point, we have seen a whole host of different flavors of that mercantilist approach that you're talking about. What in your view are the risks of that approach? Well, that we don't have a line between government and capitalism, as you see in many other countries. And I think that's a big concern. How far do you go? The president just advocated not directed the firing of Intel CEO with no evidence that he uh, yes, he has connections in China. So does Tim Cook, so does Elon Musk. But that should not be a prima fascia evidence for firing him. So I see the the CEO of Intel is hustling into the White House today to try to make peace with the president. But how far will this go? That's my concern and how much direction will there be to private industry about how to run this company? We have the golden share of Nippon Steel. And so the president's clearly taking an investment if you will, on behalf of the government in in a lot of industries. And I'm concerned, you know, we're just at the start of this administration. How far is that going to go? And we'll see. And also, the commitments being made, huge. I mean, like Apple, $100 billion on top of $500 billion. Uh enormous in four years. A lot of that won't play out till the end of the administration, but I think these tariffs, no, I think is going to take effect much sooner. And and Terry, you know, sort of what we hear Bill describing there. What are the implications for investors, both in the case of AMD and NVIDIA, but also just sort of the the way that companies need to approach this administration in the future? From an investment perspective, what do people need to think about? Well, take this NVIDIA AMD story with the 15%. Put it to, put it to the side for one second. What you've got though, is a situation where there is much more government direction and aspiration to direct the economy than there was before. The administration has been crystal clear about that. And as a matter of, as a matter of United States policy, as a matter of national security policy. One of Belsen's mantras has been for months that US National Security Policy is United States economic policy. Economic policy is national security policy. You have a situation here where they're doing everything they can, including providing huge incentives to the the manufacturing industry to onshore, to put to use tariffs in part to push different industries to onshore critical materials and and goods and the like. They've done everything short of invoking the Defense Production Act, which would essentially harness industry to government aims. Why are they doing that? Because they're, they are urgent about the nature of the Chinese challenge and how relatively speaking, how little time they think they have to write the ship. Uh and frankly, harness industry to to right size the economy to meet the Chinese challenge. That's what they think. They've been very transparent about that. And I would I would imagine that would continue and frankly, accelerate. Markets continue to be surprised every time they see something happen, like the United States taking an investment in rare earths. But you you can expect a lot more of it. It's not going, it's not, should should not be surprising at all.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
India decries 'sabre rattling' after Pakistan army chief's reported nuclear remarks
NEW DELHI (Reuters) -India on Monday accused its neighbour Pakistan of "sabre rattling" and "irresponsibility" after media reports on remarks about nuclear threats in South Asia made by Pakistan's army chief while on a visit to the United States. Indian media reports, citing sources, quoted Pakistan's Field Marshal Asim Munir as saying: "We are a nuclear nation. If we think we are going down, we'll take half the world down with us". An excerpt of his speech shared by Pakistani security officials did not include the "nuclear nation" remarks. "Pakistan is a responsible nuclear weapon state with an elaborate command and control structure under full civilian control," a statement from Pakistan's foreign office said. "It has always exercised discipline and restraint, while dealing with the issues of such importance." Munir reportedly made the remarks at a black-tie dinner hosted by a Pakistani-origin businessman in Florida on Saturday, where he spoke to a crowd of more than 100 people. Reuters could not independently verify the remarks. India and Pakistan both possess nuclear weapons and fought their deadliest battle in decades in May, sparked by an attack on tourists the previous month in Indian Kashmir, which killed 26 civilians. Randhir Jaiswal, spokesperson for India's foreign ministry, said: "Nuclear sabre-rattling is Pakistan's stock-in-trade," adding: "The international community can draw its own conclusions on the irresponsibility inherent in such remarks." He said it was also regrettable that the reported remarks should have been made while in a friendly third country. In a version of the speech shared by Pakistani security officials, Munir said: "The (Indian) aggression has brought the region to the brink of a dangerously escalating war, where a bilateral conflict due to any miscalculation will be a grave mistake." Munir was on a visit to the U.S. to attend a farewell event for General Michael Kurilla, the 15th commander of the United States Central Command. India previously lodged a private diplomatic protest with Washington when President Donald Trump hosted Munir for a lunch at the White House in June. Analysts have said that India's disagreement with Washington over the May 10 ceasefire with Pakistan, and Trump's renewed engagement with Islamabad, have contributed to a recent setback in ties between India and the U.S. under the Trump administration. Solve the daily Crossword
