UK debate on assisted dying law was sharp
British lawmakers debated whether to allow assisted dying for terminally ill people ahead of a knife-edge vote on Friday that could see the country take a major step towards legalising euthanasia.
The bill was successfully passed and the pro -euthanasia group relaxed. Protesters for and against the legislation demonstrated outside parliament, as inside MPs packed out the lower House of Commons chamber to consider one of Britain's most emotive and significant bills in years.
MPs will either approve sending the legislation to the upper House of Lords for the next step — and further scrutiny 1 or end it entirely during a crucial vote expected around 2:30 pm (1330 GMT). Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who has proposed the bill, said changing the law would 'offer a compassionate and safe choice' for terminally ill people.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would allow assisted suicide in England and Wales for adults with an incurable illness who have a life expectancy of fewer than six months. They would have to be able to administer the life-ending substance themselves, and any patient's wish to die would have to be signed off by two doctors and a panel of experts. A change in the law would see Britain emulate several other countries in Europe and elsewhere that allow some form of assisted dying, including Belgium and the Netherlands.
Supporters say euthanasia would give the terminally ill greater protections and choice at the end of their lives, but critics worry that vulnerable people could be coerced into dying. Outside in Parliament Square, protesters waved placards with slogans including 'Let us choose' and 'Don't make doctors killers'.
David Walker, 82, said he supported changing the law because he saw his wife of 60 years suffer for three years at the end of her life. 'That's why I'm here, because I can't help her anymore, but I can help other people who are going through the same thing, because if you have no quality of life, you have nothing,' he told the media.
Elizabeth Burden, a 52-year-old doctor, said she feared the bill could open 'a floodgate' of people being forced to end their lives and urged the government to focus on providing palliative care instead.
'It is a slippery slope. Once we allow this. Everything will slip down because dementia patients, all patients... are vulnerable,' she told the media.
A YouGov poll of 2,003 adults, surveyed last month and published on Thursday, suggested the public overwhelmingly supports changing the law, with 73 percent in favour. MPs backed the proposed legislation by 330 to 275 votes at an initial vote in parliament last November.
Since then the bill has undergone several changes, including applying a ban on adverts for assisted dying and allowing all health workers to opt out of helping someone end their life. MPs have also added a safeguard which would prevent a person being eligible 'solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking', ruling out people with anorexia. Several lawmakers in the 650-seat parliament have subsequently switched positions, and parties are not telling them how to vote, making the outcome difficult to predict.
An ITV News tracker of around half the parliamentarians estimates that 162 MPs plan to vote for changing the law, with 152 against. Some 22 remain undecided with another 23 due to abstain. Both the House of Commons and the House of Lords need to approve the legislation before the end of the current parliamentary year, likely sometime in the autumn, or the bill will fail. If it passes and receives royal assent, then it would be four years before an assisted dying service is implemented. A government impact assessment published this month estimated that approximately 160 to 640 assisted deaths could take place in the first year, rising to a possible 4,500 in a decade.
If he votes, Prime Minister Keir Starmer is expected to vote in favour but several of his top ministerial team, including the health and justice secretaries, have publicly opposed changing the law. Assisted suicide currently carries a maximum prison sentence of 14 years in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Separate legislation is going through the devolved Scottish parliament, while the Isle of Man at the end of March became the first British territory to pass an assisted dying bill. UK MPs last considered changing the law in 2015 and Leadbeater warned it could be another decade before the issue returns to parliament if MPs reject her bill.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
15 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
UK government faces fresh questions over legality of F-35 exports to Israel
The chair of the UK parliament's international development committee has raised major concerns over the government's legal justification for continuing to send British-made F-35 components to Israel. In a letter sent to business secretary Jonathan Reynolds on Thursday, Labour MP Sarah Champion said that she was troubled by the government's decision to allow the export of the parts indirectly to Israel, given its own assessment that there were clear risks of serious violations of international humanitarian law by Israel in Gaza. "I remain concerned that there is a real risk that weapon components, manufactured in the UK, could be used in attacks, including those on aid workers or humanitarian infrastructure," she wrote. "Adherence to the rule of law, including international law, is fundamental if we are to take a position of leadership on the world stage. We must respect, and ensure respect for [international humanitarian law]." Last September, the government suspended around 30 arms export licences after a review ordered by the newly elected Labour government found that Israel might have used British-made weapons in serious violations of international law in Gaza. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters UK-made F-35 components sent to the F-35 programme's global pool were exempt over concerns that there was no way to stop sending British parts destined for Israel without disrupting the entire global fleet and endangering international peace and security. Court documents in a legal challenge to the government's arms exports to Israel show that senior British officials talked to their American counterparts shortly before the announced suspensions to try to stop UK parts from going to the pool, but concluded that there were too many obstacles. One main issue was that, under the governing MOU, the F-35 programme is overseen by an executive steering board, which is chaired by the US and comprises representatives of participating states, and makes decisions by consensus. All participant states would have to agree for components being used in Israeli F-35s to be limited, and logistics that are not currently used would have to be put in place to separate out components destined for Israel, the court documents outlined. However, Champion questioned whether the exemption of the UK-made F-35 parts from the suspension was compatible with the UK's legal obligations, particularly under the Arms Trade Treaty and the Genocide Convention. She has asked Reynolds 10 questions focused on these issues, including what legal authority the government has relied upon for the exemption. She also asked whether the government accepted that the duty to prevent genocide in Gaza had been triggered. If so, what steps "is the UK taking to employ 'all means' and do 'all in their power' to prevent genocide, as far as possible?" she wrote. Similar concerns have been raised by the UK-based Global Legal Action Network (Glan) and the Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq, which have challenged the UK government's decision in the High Court. They have also been raised by business and trade committee chair Liam Byrne in a series of letters sent to Foreign Minister Stephen Doughty over the past seven months. Most recently, Byrne has proposed that Doughty and other Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence ministers appear before his committee before the summer recess to answer questions, among other issues, about government data which shows that licences for the export to Israel of $169m worth of military equipment were approved in the three months following the September 2024 supensions. Champion's questions come as the UK government announced this week plans to purchase 12 new F-35 jets that can carry US nuclear weapons. She has asked Reynolds for answers by 11 July.
Sharjah 24
18 hours ago
- Sharjah 24
DGR, UK Embassy to explore partnerships in various fields
The meeting was led by Sheikh Fahim Al Qasimi, Chairman of the Department of Government Relations, and Edward Hobart, British Ambassador to the UAE. They were joined by H.E. Sarah Mooney, British Trade Commissioner for the Middle East and Pakistan, and British Consul General in Dubai; Sheikh Majid bin Abdullah Al Qasimi, Director of DGR; Stacy Keating, Second Secretary (Political Affairs) at the British embassy in the UAE; Amanda Buckley, Cultural Affairs Officer at the British embassy in the UAE; and Martin Daltry, Country Director for the British Council in the UAE . During discussions, Sharjah outlined its planned government, community, and cultural initiatives for the next year, and dialogue also centered on identifying collaboration opportunities in shared priority areas, as well as facilitating information exchange regarding the UK's 2025 programmes . Strategic partnerships in intellectual and cultural exchange In his comments on the meeting, Sheikh Fahim Al Qasimi emphasised that the vision of His Highness Sheikh Dr. Sultan bin Mohammed Al Qasimi, Member of the Supreme Council and Ruler of Sharjah, is founded on the belief that culture and knowledge are among the most vital pillars for shaping strong international relations that can truly impact the course of human development. He stated that Sharjah views cultural and academic cooperation as a sustainable path for building bridges of understanding between nations . He added: 'Our meeting with the British Embassy delegation is an extension of this vision and a reflection of a deep-rooted belief that knowledge-based partnerships are the foundation of such engagement. These partnerships have already fostered a thriving cultural and intellectual movement within the emirate, enriching Sharjah's society and strengthening its position as an international hub for research and education. The unique integration of Sharjah's creative economy with its broader economic infrastructure enhances its capacity to host impactful collaborations with leading global institutions; an approach that is clearly reflected in the outcomes of this meeting .' Supporting higher education and academic exchange The delegates also explored collaboration prospects in higher education through the development of joint academic programmes between British universities and their counterparts in Sharjah. These programmes would focus on fields such as media, engineering, and the humanities, reinforcing Sharjah's position as a regional hub for knowledge and higher education . Development of creative industries and cultural events Additionally, the dialogue addressed support for the creative industries through partnerships encompassing arts, design, digital media, and content creation, and potential collaboration with the Sharjah Creative Quarter (SCQ) was also a key focus. Established in January 2025, the SCQ aims to enhance the emirate's creative economy by organizing joint cultural initiatives, facilitating expertise exchange, and empowering cultural entrepreneurs . This high-level meeting exemplifies a mutual commitment to deepening bilateral cooperation through strategic projects and initiatives designed to achieve shared developmental and cultural goals, thereby creating new pathways for institutional integration and knowledge exchange .
Middle East Eye
2 days ago
- Middle East Eye
Israel's war on Gaza: Who are Palestine Action?
The British government is set to ban the direct action group Palestine Action under anti-terror legislation after activists broke into RAF Brize Norton earlier this month and spray-painted two planes. The group said the airbase was targeted because flights leave there daily "for RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, a base used for military operations in Gaza and across the Middle East". The activists damaged Airbus Voyager aircraft, which carry military cargo and refuel fighter jets and military planes. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has said she will bring legislation to proscribe the group before Parliament on 30 June. If passed, it will designate Palestine Action as a proscribed terrorist organisation, making it illegal not only to be a member of the group but also to show support for it. It would mark the first time a direct action group has been proscribed in the UK, placing Palestine Action on a par with al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria under British law. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Direct action involves tactics, including protests, boycotts, strikes and damage to property, rather than appealing to institutions and politicians. Examples include the Suffragettes, the American civil rights movement and ACTUP, a grass roots political group which fought to end the AIDS epidemic during the early 1980s. MEE looks at the group and whether it meets the criteria for proscription. Who are Palestine Action? Palestine Action was founded in 2020 after activists broke into and spray painted the London headquarters of Israel's largest arms firm, UK-based Elbit Systems. Its network of activists have subsequently used tactics, including direct action, to target what it says are the 'corporate enablers of the Israeli military-industrial complex', often breaking into offices and factories to spraypaint or damage equipment they say is used to commit war crimes in occupied Palestine. Elbit Systems is the group's primary target, prompting multiple companies to sever ties with the defence contractor, and costing the company 'billions' in lost contracts and divestments, according to Palestine Action. Barclays, which owned 16,000 shares in Elbit Systems, divested from the contractors in October, while the UK's Ministry of Defence cancelled £280m worth of contracts with the company. Many of its activists have previously been acquitted by juries, on the grounds of "defence of necessity", namely that the damage to property was justified as it was intended to prevent deaths. 'Repressive': UK government confirms Palestine Action terror proscription as hundreds rally Read More » But these defences have been systemically removed, using anti-protest legislation which has expanded police powers to crack down on peaceful protest, and impose increasingly severe sentences for those activists found guilty. This culminated with the unprecedented use of terror charges against a group of Palestine Action activists known as the Filton 18. In August last year, six activists drove a modified van into Elbit System's research and development hub in Filton, Bristol. The activists dismantled weapons, including quadcopter drone models deployed by Israel in its war on Gaza, causing £1m ($1.24m) in damage. The six activists were arrested at the scene for violent disorder and assault. A further 12 activists were rounded up in connection with the action by counter-terrorism police in two waves of raids. They were subsequently charged with non-terror related offences, including aggravated burglary and criminal damage. But because they were arrested for terrorism offences, the 18 have been held on remand under counter-terror powers until their trial in November. By then they will have been detained for more than a year - far longer than the usual six-month (182 days) detention limit for those facing trial. The move has been denounced by UN experts. The Crown Prosecution Service, which is prosecuting the case, has said that it intends to argue the offences they allege the Filton 18 committed have a 'terrorist connection', which could aggravate their sentence. Activists have also been arrested under anti-organised crime laws intended to target individuals on the periphery of criminal gangs, and tried on charges of conspiracy to blackmail. What is proscription? Proscription bans membership of, or support for, an organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. Proscription offences can carry sentences of up to 14 years in prison. First, the government needs to consider whether a group has commited, encouraged or is 'otherwise concerned with terrorism'. The legislation defines 'terrorism' in this context as the use or threat of action which - involves serious violence against a person - involves serious damage to property - endangers a person's life - creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or section of the public or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. Then, the home secretary will consider whether to proscribe the organisation, based on a number of criteria, according to the Home Office - the nature and scale of an organisation's activities - the specific threat that it poses to the UK - the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas - the extent of the organisation's presence in the UK - the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. At time of writing, 81 organisations are proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000; and a further 14 organisations in Northern Ireland were proscribed under earlier legislation. Does Palestine Action meet the threshold for proscription? In assessing whether Palestine Action is eligible for proscription, the UK government appears to be focusing on what Cooper has described as the 'serious damage to property' it caused at Brize Norton on 20 June. In a written statement on 23 June, Cooper said the action was 'the latest in a long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action' and that 'the UK's defence enterprise is vital to the nation's national security'. She said police estimated that Palestine Action operations had incurred 'millions of pounds' worth of damage since its launch in 2020. Kelly's Solicitors, which specialises in political and protest-related work, and represents Palestine Action, has argued in a letter to Cooper that a 'significant number' of the group's activities have employed 'entirely conventional campaigning methods such as marches, rallies and demos'. Laura O'Brien, head of the protest team at Hodge Jones & Allen Solicitors, told MEE: 'Palestine Action isn't a membership organisation, really it's a campaign. And the people that become involved in what are generally expressive forms of protest have often never been in trouble before. 'Many of the actions carried out under the banner of Palestine Action don't include significant damage, some of them include damage which is low value, often as simple as throwing red paint which is washed away. 'When people are charged with criminal damage, and we go to court, a lot of those damages which are put forward aren't in fact criminal damage - they're consequential losses,' Simon Pook, a solicitor representing several of the Filton 18 activists, told MEE. 'The costs that are initially put forward when the case opens are subsequently substantially reduced." Cooper stated that the assessment of damage by the group's actions over the last five years had been based on 'a robust evidence-based process, by a wide range of experts from across government, the police and the security services'. But Charlie Falconer, who served as justice secretary under Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair, said that the Brize Norton action did not merit proscription 'so there must be something else that I don't know about'. How does the action at RAF Brize Norton compare to similar cases? Legal experts have highlighted that Palestine Action's methods are not unprecedented: protestors have targeted military facilities in the past and been acquitted. In its letter to Cooper, Kelly's pointed to the discrepancy between the government's response to Palestine Action and that of the Fairford Five, a group of activists who, in 2003, broke into an RAF airbase and sabotaged US bombers before they flew to Iraq during the US-led invasion. Josh Richards, one of three protesters, was defended by current UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who was a barrister at the time. Starmer argued that the actions of his client, who allegedly intended to set fire to a military jet with a mixture of petroleum and washing-up liquid, were a justified attempt to prevent war crimes. 'If you look at the guidance that Keir Starmer set out in that case, it seems to be a massive contradiction,' said Pook. 'People may be outraged about spraying red paint on military jets. In my view, that is far less serious than having a can of petrol." Can proscription be challenged or reversed? Under the Terrorism Act, an application can be made to the home secretary, requesting that they de-proscribe an organisation. If refused, then there is a right of appeal to the Proscribed Organisation Appeal Commission. According to the Home Office, the commission will permit the appeal "if it considers that the decision to refuse de-proscription was flawed, applying judicial review principles". The most recent was that of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, in November 2019. O'Brien said that few organisations have challenged proscription. 'But that's perhaps not surprising, because often the organisations that are being proscribed are so often identified as militant organisations who promote violence in order to bring about regime or political change. 'This is a different type of case, because a direct action group is the subject of the proscription. There is much more likely to be a challenge this time." Palestine Action have launched a fundraising campaign to challenge the ban.
