Warning over assisted dying TikTok adverts as MPs further debate Bill
Tight legal safeguards are needed to rule out assisted dying being advertised on TikTok in future, Parliament has heard.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has returned to the Commons for further debate, with an ad ban among the issues discussed.
The Bill is undergoing a second day of report stage on Friday, with various amendments being debated and possibly voted on.
Its third reading – where a vote is taken on the overall Bill – could take place next Friday.
Opening debate, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater proposed an amendment to her Bill which would impose a duty on the Government to make regulations prohibiting advertisements to promote services relating to voluntary assisted dying should the legislation pass.
She has previously said it 'would feel inappropriate for this to be something which was advertised'.
Bill opponent and fellow Labour MP Paul Waugh warned of 'unspecified exceptions, which could make the ban itself worthless', adding he had put forward a tighter amendment to 'strengthen the Bill on this issue and to better protect the vulnerable'.
Addressing the Commons, he said: 'Advertising works because we human beings are suggestible. Prone to messaging, visual clues and hints. Older people are bombarded with adverts for everything from stairlifts to care homes.
'One person's advert, though, is another person's public information campaign.'
He added that unless Ms Leadbeater's amendment is tightened to limit the exceptions to a ban, social media ads on the issue in future would be possible.
He said: 'Many in this House rightly try to protect teenagers from online harms. But the online harm of an ad for a website about assisted dying shared on TikTok could be a reality without the tighter safeguards in my amendment.'
Other issues being debated on Friday include an amendment requiring the Health Secretary to publish an assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of palliative and end-of-life care one year after the Bill passing into law.
Pledging her support for the amendment, which has been tabled by Liberal Democrat Munira Wilson, Ms Leadbeater said MPs should not have to choose between supporting assisted dying or palliative care as it is not an 'either/or' conversation for dying people.
She said palliative care and assisted dying 'can and do work side by side to give terminally-ill patients the care and choice they deserve in their final days', and urged MPs to support 'all options available to terminally ill people'.
Ms Wilson's amendment is supported by Marie Curie, which said it is 'desperately needed as the end-of-life care system is in crisis, with huge gaps in services and a lack of NHS leadership on this vital part of our health and care system'.
The beginning of Friday's session saw MPs add a new opt-out clause to the Bill.
The amendment, meaning no person including all health and social care professionals, can be obliged to take part in assisted dying had been debated and approved last month, but has now been formally added to the Bill.
The Bill passed second reading stage by a majority of 55 during a historic vote in November which saw MPs support the principle of assisted dying.
Various media reports have indicated some MPs who voted in favour last year could withdraw their support amid concerns around safeguards and how much scrutiny the proposed legislation has received, while others might switch to supporting a Bill that backers argue has been strengthened over time.
Opinion in the medical community has been divided, with the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) and Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) expressing concern, but some MPs who are doctors are among the Bill's strongest supporters.
Seven RCPsych members, including a former president and vice president, have written to MPs to distance themselves from their college's concern, instead describing the current Bill as 'workable, safe and compassionate' with a 'clear and transparent legal framework'.
Meanwhile, the Children's Commissioner for England has repeated her call for children's voices to be heard in the conversation, saying their views had been 'at best been sidelined, at worst written off entirely simply because they would not fall within the scope of the current scope of legislation'.
Demonstrators both for and against a change in the law once again gathered outside Parliament to make their views known on the Bill.
Disability campaigner George Fielding, representing campaign group Not Dead Yet UK, argued the Bill 'risks state-sanctioned suicide' but Claire Macdonald, director of My Death, My Decision said 'no-one should be forced to suffer, and the British public wants politicians to change the law on assisted dying'.
In a letter to MPs this week, Ms Leadbeater said supporters and opponents appear in agreement that 'if we are to pass this legislation it should be the best and safest Bill possible'.
She added: 'I'm confident it can and will be.'
As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally-ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill and any amendments, meaning they vote according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Dominic Cummings may have just blown the grooming gangs scandal wide open
All progressives solemnly honour LGBTQIA+ Pride Month. And Islamophobia Awareness Month. And Black History Month. Plus many other such events. This is because they're passionately committed to 'raising awareness' of social injustice. So why not the grooming gangs scandal? For some reason, this is one example of social injustice which has failed to grip progressives' attention. To rectify this, I suggest we introduce Grooming Gangs Awareness Month. Fly an official Grooming Gangs Scandal flag from all public buildings. Get civil servants to wear Grooming Gangs Scandal lanyards. Then perhaps these people might finally take an interest. Then again, we may be wasting our time. In all likelihood, progressives have never lacked 'awareness' of the grooming gangs. They just didn't want anyone else to be aware of them. Which brings me to the explosive allegations made on Thursday by Dominic Cummings. In an interview with GB News, he claimed that, when he was working at the Department for Education in the early 2010s, there were 'mass cover-ups of the whole thing in Whitehall'. Are Mr Cummings's allegations true? I don't know. But then, that's why we need the full national inquiry that Labour continues to deny us. A handful of mere 'local inquiries' won't do – not least because it wouldn't be within their scope to investigate Mr Cummings's claims about what went on in Whitehall. Yesterday, incidentally, seven members of yet another grooming gang were found guilty of raping two teenage girls in Rochdale. Labour may not like Mr Cummings. But this time I think it should listen to him. And, for that matter, to the increasingly furious public. Talking Bull Personally, I was somewhat taken aback when, on Tuesday, the new chairman of Nigel Farage's Reform UK told voters that 'immigration is the lifeblood of this country, and it always has been'. I was even more surprised when, on Wednesday, he told Richard Madeley on ITV's Good Morning Britain that he was once strangled by an evil spirit masquerading as the ghost of his late grandmother. To my mind, though, Dr David Bull's most intriguing comment of the week was this. Asked whether he supports calls to ban the burqa in this country, he replied: 'I'm very anxious about the rise in people that think it is OK to hide their faces. We had a conversation yesterday about whether that was the burqa, crash helmets, scarves or whatever.' Hang on. Crash helmets? I for one have always admired Reform's bracingly no-nonsense attitude towards health-and-safety-gone-mad. But a ban on crash helmets, I feel, might be taking it a touch too far. In any case, I'm not convinced that there's a huge public clamour for such a ban. There are plenty of people who want to ban the burqa, and they have strong arguments for doing so. But I've never heard a voter say: 'I'm sorry, but I'm sick of seeing all these women walking around the streets in crash helmets. It's not as if it's their choice, either. Their husbands force them to do it. The crash helmet is a disgusting symbol of misogyny and patriarchal oppression. 'Also, crash helmets make normal human interaction impossible. When a motorcyclist zooms past me at 70mph, I expect to be able to see his face. 'Anyway, it's just not British. If motorcyclists want to wear crash helmets, they can go and do it in their own country.' Remarks like those, I would guess, aren't heard all that often in focus groups. So why Dr Bull raised the idea, entirely unprompted, in reply to a question about banning the burqa, I don't know. Still, I'm not complaining. Far from it. When I stepped down as this newspaper's parliamentary sketch writer in 2021, after 10 years, I felt that politics was in danger of becoming dull. The previous decade had teemed with the most glorious eccentrics, on Left and Right alike. Increasingly, however, they seemed to be fading from view, to be replaced by robotic regiments of Starmers and Sunaks. How wonderful it is to see a new generation coming through. Violence: a Left-wing guide I don't know whether you ever read Left-wing news outlets. But if you do, this week you'll probably have noticed something peculiar. In such outlets, the violence in Ballymena is always described as 'rioting' – yet the violence in LA is always described as 'protests'. You may well have wondered why this is. After all, both Ballymena and LA have seen cars set on fire, missiles thrown, and police officers injured. These are all very bad things. So why don't Left-wing news outlets refer to both as 'rioting'? The answer is simple. The violence in Ballymena is being perpetrated by people who are against mass immigration. The violence in LA, in contrast, is being perpetrated by people who are in favour not only of mass immigration, but of 'irregular' (i.e., illegal) immigration. And, just as importantly, they hate Donald Trump. Therefore, their actions must be made to sound understandable and legitimate. In other words: sometimes setting people's cars on fire is nasty and frightening. And sometimes it's noble and compassionate. Please update your records accordingly.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Six great reads: the trouble with ‘great men', Fire Island's hedonistic party palaces and close encounters with Sly Stone
British progressives have suffered major setbacks in recent years, in both public opinion and court rulings. Was a backlash inevitable, and are new tactics needed, asks Gaby Hinsliff in this fascinating Long Read: 'On all sides, woke has become shorthand less for a set of widely accepted liberal beliefs than an associated style of highly online activism, seen as prone to denouncing opponents as morally evil, engaging in competitive victimhood and favouring performative protest over practical change.' Read more We're obsessed with narratives about powerful men and how they got that way. But our mania for founder myths obscures an ideology of inequality, writes author Alice Bolin for Guardian US's weekend Featured essay: 'The current billionaire class has more power than any human beings have ever had, and they wield it with remarkably little responsibility. Billionaires must be cut down to size through every means possible, from breaking up monopolies to tax reform to financial regulation to union drives. But we also need to stop swallowing these Great Man stories whole and recognise them for what they are: an ideology of dominance.' Read more Jonathan Haidt's book about why social media and smartphones have done, and are doing, to chillden's brains has become an international bestseller and a must-read for parents of young and teenage children. In this interview with David Shariatmadari he spoke about becoming a figurehead of the conversation about kids and technology and his playbook for fighting back against what he calls 'The Great Rewiring' of children's brains. Read more On 1 April 1945, US troops landed on Okinawa during their push towards mainland Japan, beginning a battle that lasted until late June. About 12,000 Americans and more than 188,000 Japanese died. In this beautifully designed report, Justin McCurry, the Guardian's Tokyo correspondent follows Takamatsu Gushiken on a mission to uncover as many remains of as many dead soldiers as possible, identify them and return them to their families. Justin also explores this story further in an accompanying documentary directed by Guardian photographer David Levene, titled The Bone Hunter. Read more Over the last century, Fire Island Pines, as the central square-mile section of this sandy spit is known, has evolved into something of a queer Xanadu. Now counting about 600 homes, it is a place of mythic weekend-long parties and carnal pleasure, a byword for bacchanalia and fleshy hedonism – but also simply a secluded haven where people can be themselves … ' Oliver Wainwright examines the architectural legacy of Horace Gifford, the architect who arrived there in 1960, aged 28 and bored with working in a dull office in Manhattan and determined to make his mark in the sand. Read more Guardian music critic Alexis Petridis had several close calls before he managed to secure his first interview with the legendary American musician, who died this week, including attempting to speak to him from a children's playground while on holiday in Cornwall. Here he recollects his conversations with a genius who burned brightly before spending decades in a drug-fogged wilderness: 'He achieved more in those six years than most artists achieve in their lifetime, making music of such quality and originality, such power and funkiness, that you suspect it will be played for the rest of time. If there is anything even remotely like it in the thousands of tracks he amassed in his later years, that is just a bonus.' Read more
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
5mph speed limits: another bonkers Labour idea to make drivers' lives hell
The war on motorists grows more bizarre every day. Wales, long ruled by Labour, remains the source of the most bonkers ideas. Earlier this year, Jane Hutt MS, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, appeared to be floating the idea of a speed limit of 5mph being appropriate 'in some circumstances'. 🚨WELSH GOVERNMENT TO INTRODUCE 5MPH SPEED LIMITS?🚨 Welsh Government minister @JaneHutt appears to endorse cutting speed limits to as low as 5mph, before saying the 20mph policy, which cost taxpayers £32m, was "welcomed by the people of Wales". Out of touch. — DOGE Wales 🏴💰 (@SeneddWaste) May 20, 2025 That is roughly the speed of a horse-drawn carriage, so long as it was walking. A trotting horse would typically do double that speed, leaving Ms Hutt in the dust in her car, presumably before being promptly turned into glue for speeding, if the Senedd had its way. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. After all, this is the administration which famously withdrew support 'for all major road projects in Wales because of climate change', and pushed through the controversial 20mph blanket speed limit across all residential roads and busy pedestrian streets in 2023. Nearly two years since the imposition of the policy, Welsh drivers remain furious. And who can blame them? The speed limit is a stick with which to beat drivers into swapping their cars for bicycles and public transport. 'To suck every bit of joy out of driving and make life miserable for drivers,' as a friend once put it. He's picked up nine points, all for driving around 24 or 25 miles per hour, after struggling to rein in a life-long habit of driving at a slightly more reasonable and efficient pace. 'I spend the whole time looking at the speedometer,' another told me. 'The journey to work takes about 20 minutes longer, so I burn fuel for longer and pay more for it'. With a minimum fine of £100 and three penalty points for going over the limit and prosecutions starting at 26mph, the costs to motorists are considerable. The risk of loss of licence and even livelihoods for some is a real danger. There are also more cars on the road for longer, resulting in increased stop-and-go traffic, with frequent braking and accelerating also contributing towards greater fuel consumption and associated costs. Then there's the wider costs. The Welsh government's own research reportedly found that the 20mph policy could potentially cost the economy £4.5bn, though spread over 30 years. This analysis was signed off by the minister for climate change in January 2023 as 'a fair and reasonable view of the expected impact' of the policy, but – in line with the eco evangelism proudly adopted by her government – that she was 'satisfied that the benefits justify the likely costs'. But it's not only in Wales that drivers are being driven out of town. This side of the border motorists are being caught out by 'low traffic neighbourhoods' which not only imposed steep fines when the often imperceptible borders are innocently breached, but have been blamed for increasing pollution on major roads where poorer residents typically live. One scheme set up by Lambeth council in south London was deemed unlawful by the High Court after it ruled the authority had failed to properly listen to residents' concerns. Cash-strapped councils are raising ever-growing sums from parking permits and fines. Across Britain, local authorities have raised £360m from residential parking permits over the last five years, according to Cinch, the online car dealer. Top of the list was Wandsworth Borough Council, which collected £38m from residential permits between 2020 and 2024 alone. And that's before you add in fines from mistakes like driving in bus 'gates' and lanes as well as car parking charges. Back to Wales and its obsession with slow driving. Sense has prevailed in Wrexham at least, with some roads already returning to a 30mph limit. We must not let the age-old argument of safety hold back progress. An infamous New York Times article from 1928 raised concerns around 'horseless carriages' being driven without the added intelligence of a second creature. The answer was to improve safety, not to place restrictions that would make them less efficient than the horse-drawn carriages they were destined to replace. The same is true today, with technology gradually making cars safer. That's not to mention the improved air quality the advent of electric cars – over which I have other concerns, perhaps best discussed in another piece – will usher in at least in this country. As ever, families and businesses are left to pick up the price of government interference, through higher running costs and missed opportunities caused by delays, and in some cases, even the loss of livelihood.
