Children's voices must be heard in assisted dying Bill debate, says commissioner
The Children's Commissioner has called for under-18s to have their views considered on assisted dying, branding it 'deeply concerning' they have not been consulted about the proposed new law going through Parliament.
Dame Rachel de Souza said the topic is 'one of the most profound moral and philosophical debates of a generation' and said its implications for children in later life are 'undeniable'.
Only people aged 18 and older would be eligible for an assisted death under the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill if it became law.
It would allow only 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.
ADVERTISEMENT
But Dame Rachel said children's views should be heard, saying it must be considered whether, for some young people with additional needs, a change in the law could result in 'a belief in a child that their life somehow has less value than others because of their condition'.
Publishing a 10-page report on Wednesday on children's views on assisted dying, she said it was 'deeply concerning to me whenever legislation that affects children's lives passes through Parliament without taking their views and opinions into consideration.'
The commissioner added: 'Such is the case for the Assisted Dying Bill.
'The Bill currently before Parliament seeks to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults or adults living with life-limiting conditions.
'Though the proposed legislation applies only to those over the age of 18, its implications for children — especially those nearing legal adulthood — are undeniable.'
ADVERTISEMENT
Dame Rachel acknowledged that the views of the children her office had spoken to do not speak for every child and are 'nuanced and diverse'.
But she added: 'Their deep consensus was that whatever their view, they must be engaged in this debate, one of the most profound moral and philosophical debates of a generation.
'I absolutely agree. It is essential to listen, to reflect, and to ensure that policy and law-making does not overlook the perspective of those they will one day impact.
'Whether or not a child would, on turning 18, become within scope of the Assisted Dying Bill's proposals, whether it would allow a family member to end their own life and leave them without adequate support in their grief, or whether it fosters a belief in a child that their life somehow has less value than others because of their condition – all their voices deserve to be heard as part of this conversation.'
The commissioner said she has written to Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the Bill, to share her report.
ADVERTISEMENT
Among those quoted, anonymously, were a 15-year-old girl who said the 'government gives no social care to people like me and then gives me an option to choose to die if I feel I can no longer live', and a 16-year-old who questioned whether a law might end up 'removing people from society that people don't want in society?'.
But another 16-year-old girl said a law could 'relieve pain, suffering' for 'those who are very ill, very sick' and a boy of the same age said 'there might be people who (this is helpful for)' if someone has 'not much quality of life'.
Ms Leadbeater has been contacted for comment.
The Bill is due to return to the House of Commons for further debate on May 16.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Abbott calls Starmer's immigration comments ‘fundamentally racist' at rally
Backbench Labour MP Diane Abbott has criticised Sir Keir Starmer's comments on immigration as 'fundamentally racist' at a protest rally, suggesting the Government was copying the rhetoric of Reform UK. Thousands of trade unionists, campaigners and activists gathered to 'send a message' to the Government at a demonstration over spending cuts and welfare reform in central London on Saturday. Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and Ms Abbott were among those who gave speeches at the rally outside Downing Street following a march. Organisers The People's Assembly accused the Government of making spending cuts that target the poorest in society. The Prime Minister said the UK risked becoming 'an island of strangers' when he unveiled plans for tighter controls on immigration in a major speech last month, leading to a mixed reaction from different parties. Addressing the protest crowd in Whitehall, Ms Abbott – who was previously suspended by Labour in 2023 before being allowed to run in last year's general election – said there was an international struggle to 'fight the rich and the powerful (and) to fight the racists', including in her own party. The Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP said: 'I was very disturbed to hear Keir Starmer on the subject of immigration. 'He talked about closing the book on a squalid chapter for our politics – immigrants represent a squalid chapter. 'He talked about how he thought immigration has done incalculable damage to this green and pleasant land, which, of course, is nonsense – immigrants built this land. 'And, finally, he said we risk becoming an island of strangers. 'I thought that was a fundamentally racist thing to say. It is contrary to Britain's history. 'My parents came to this country in the 50s. They were not strangers. They helped to build this country. 'I think Keir Starmer is quite wrong to say that the way that you beat Reform is to copy Reform.' Reform's leader Nigel Farage previously said his party 'very much enjoyed' Sir Keir's speech, as it showed he was 'learning a great deal' from them. Representatives from the National Education Union, Revolutionary Communist Party, Green Party and the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union could be seen at the demonstration's start point in Portland Place. The large crowd then set off towards Whitehall shortly before 1pm. Many of the protesters were holding placards that read 'Tax the rich, stop the cuts – welfare not warfare'. Other signs being held aloft said 'Nurses not nukes' and 'Cut war, not welfare'. Mr Corbyn, who also criticised Sir Keir's 'island of strangers' comments, told protesters at the rally: 'As the wars rage around the world – the killing fields in Ukraine and Russia, the abominable, deliberate starvation of children in Gaza and the genocide that's inflicted against the Palestinian people continues – surely to goodness we need a world of peace. 'We need a world of peace that will come through the vision of peace, the vision of disarmament and the vision of actually challenging the causes of war, which leads to the desperation and the refugee flows of today.' The Independent MP for Islington North urged protesters to 'go forward as a movement of hope, of what we can achieve together (and) the society we can build together'. The People's Assembly said trade unionists, health, disability, housing and welfare campaigners with community organisations came together for the protest under the slogan 'No to Austerity2.0'. A spokesperson said: 'The adherence to 'fiscal rules' traps us in a public service funding crisis, increasing poverty, worsening mental health and freezing public sector pay. 'Scrapping winter fuel payments, keeping the Tory two-child benefit cap, abandoning Waspi women, cutting £5 billion of welfare by limiting Pip and universal credit eligibility, and slashing UK foreign aid from 0.5% to 0.3% of GDP, while increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, are presented as 'tough choices'. 'Real tough choices would be for a Labour government to tax the rich and their hidden wealth, to fund public services, fair pay, investment in communities and the NHS.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Nigel Farage has yet to prove he can work with others
Two days after quitting after a very public dispute with one of the party's five MPs, former Reform chairman Zia Yusuf is returning to the party to take up a new role, with his exact job title yet to be settled on. On Thursday, helping Nigel Farage's party continue its remarkable rise was no longer a 'good use' of Mr Yusuf's time; today, it once again appears to be his primary objective. This will be welcome news for Mr Farage, who was reported to have felt dejected by Mr Yusuf's sudden departure. It is a positive sign, too, that the personality clashes within the party appear to have been put to one side for now. Peace has broken out over the spat that led to his departure, with Mr Yusuf attributing his decision to a combination of 'exhaustion' and feeling blindsided by the sudden raising of a potential burka ban as a policy issue in Parliament. The last two days of drama point, however, to a wider issue: Reform is not yet a professional operation on par with the established rivals it seeks to displace. While the party has made considerable electoral progress in the past year, Reform's institutional structures have lagged behind with repeated embarrassing stories over previous statements made by candidates highlighting in sharp and unforgiving fashion the importance of building back office capabilities to identify, screen and vet candidates to a satisfactory standard. There is, however, only so much staff can do. The concern for Reform will be that the sudden changes in personnel that have unfolded over the last year – the departure of Rupert Lowe MP, the resignation and return of Mr Yusuf – are mirroring a pattern observed in previous episodes in Mr Farage's political career. The former UKIP and Brexit party leader is no stranger to clashes with colleagues, and while apparently not directly at fault in this instance there will still be concerns that some elements of the drama around Reform may be integral to his leadership style. This, rather than the political skill of Sir Keir Starmer or Kemi Badenoch, may prove the greatest obstacle to Reform's ambitions in the years ahead. While Mr Farage has succeeded in capturing the votes of a large proportion of this country disaffected with Westminster and the traditional parties of government, there is little appetite to return to the squabbling and briefing that marked the dying years of the last Conservative government, or the worst days of New Labour. It is now for Reform to prove it can steer a calmer course. 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 hours ago
- Yahoo
Without a Badenoch/Farage pact, the Left will rule Scotland for decades to come
Did Zia Yusuf's dramatic (and as it turns out, temporary) resignation on the day of the Hamilton by-election cost Reform the seat? Of course not. The idea that chaos in Reform puts off its voters is based on a misunderstanding of what motivates those voters. Reform exists because the older parties failed. You might argue that not all of that failure was their fault. Some of the issues that enrage the electorate – poor public services, high taxes, rising prices, dwindling social capital – are the products of a lockdown that 93 per cent of the country demanded. Others are products of our demographic decline: nations with elderly populations are bound to be less dynamic. Equally, though, there have been unforced errors and broken promises, above all on immigration. Reform is a howl of protest against those betrayals. It is an essentially negative vote, and I say that in no slighting spirit. Every party attracts negative votes. I used to get lots of them as a Conservative MEP when people wanted to punish Labour governments. Negative votes can take you, Trump-like, to the very top. I simply make the point that Reform's supporters show scant interest in their party's policies, let alone its personnel. Reform came from nowhere in the Hamilton by-election despite not having a leader in Scotland. It is hard to imagine the famously resilient electors of Lanarkshire determining their vote on the basis of an unelected party official resigning in London. If we want to play 'what if', the thing that might have given Reform the extra 1,471 votes it needed was the backing of the local Conservatives. Not every Tory would vote for Reform in the absence of a Conservative candidate, of course. Still, the electoral system used for Holyrood argues strongly for a deal at next year's Scottish Parliament election. Just as the SNP and the Scottish Greens used to maximise their representation by focusing respectively on the constituencies and the top-up list, so Reform and the Tories should do the same in 11 months' time. In Scotland, as in England and Wales, the parties have similar policies but different electorates. The Scottish Conservatives are strong in the Borders and the north-east, Reform in the more populous Central Belt. An understanding between them would leave both with more MSPs next May. Such a deal in Wales might have put Reform into office had the principality not just ditched that voting system and adopted EU-style proportional representation, but that's another story. How many Tory and Reform voters would co-operate? Although the two manifestos are compatible – lower taxes, strong defence, less wokery, secure borders, growth over greenery – tonal and aesthetic differences remain. Some Reform supporters will never vote Conservative, either because they can't forgive the tax rises and immigration failures of the last administration or, conversely, because they are former Labour voters who would never back the party of Margaret Thatcher. Some Conservatives – a smaller number – recoil from a party they see as a Trumpian personality cult. One way to express the difference is this. The Tories, after three and a half centuries, have a sense of the trade-offs and complexities involved in holding office. Reform is in the happy position of being able to claim that it is simply a question of willpower. Consider the issue of immigration. On Friday, Kemi Badenoch embarked on a major overhaul of the Blairite juridical state. She asked her shadow law officers to look at all treaties and domestic laws that hinder elected ministers from fulfilling their promises, and set five tests by which to measure success. Will we be able to deport people who should not be here, protect our veterans from 'lawfare', prioritise British citizens in housing and welfare, keep malefactors in prison, and get things built? Meeting all five tests is hard, but not impossible. Badenoch wants to take her time and get it right. But, to some, it will come across as equivocation. 'Why can't you just say now that you would leave the European Convention on Human Rights?', they ask. I have no doubt that that is where she will end up. But we need policies, not slogans. Leaving the ECHR is not a skeleton key that unlocks every door. Our problems go far deeper. Outside the ECHR, we would be constrained by numerous other international accords: the UN Refugee Convention; the Paris Agreement on climate change (under which our Australia Free Trade Agreement is being challenged in court); the Aarhus Convention, which caps costs for activist groups bringing eco-challenges. Even the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been used both to challenge deportation orders and to block welfare reforms. All these things need to be looked at, calmly and thoroughly. Nor is it just foreign treaties. The last Labour government passed a series of domestic statutes that constrained its successors: the Human Rights Act, the Climate Change Act, the Equality Act and a dozen more. We need to tackle these, too. What, if anything, should replace the ECHR? Do we update our own 1689 Bill of Rights? Do we offer a CANZUK version? Do we rely on pure majoritarianism? Even if all the obnoxious laws were swept away, what would we do about Left-wing activists who become judges rather than go to the bother of getting themselves elected to anything, and who legislate from the bench? Can we return to the pre-Blair arrangements where the lord chancellor is in charge? My point is that all this requires patience, detail and nuance. But a lot of voters are understandably impatient, and regard nuance as the sign of a havering milksop – a nuancy-boy, so to speak. They see not a Conservative Party determined to repair the broken state machine so that it can deliver on its manifesto, but a bunch of vacillating wets shying away from simple solutions. This worries me. Suppose that Nigel Farage were to form the next government and leave the ECHR, only to find that illegal immigrants continued to arrive, that judges continued to apply the rules asymmetrically, and that every one of his statutes ended up being snarled up in the courts? What would be the impact on our democracy? I pick the example of immigration because it is the most salient, but much the same applies across government. Reducing spending involves trade-offs, and anyone who pretends that there are huge savings to be made by scrapping DEI programmes or cutting waste has not looked at the figures. The same is true of reducing welfare claims, scrapping quangos, reforming the NHS and raising school standards. The diagnosis may be easy, but the treatment will be long and difficult, and will require more than willpower. In his response to Yusuf's resignation, Farage reminded us why he is a successful politician. He blamed Islamophobic trolls for making his party chairman's life impossible, thereby both anticipating the 'no one can work with Nigel' charge and reinforcing his non-racist credentials. The same calculation led him to condemn Tommy Robinson, and played a part in his falling-out with Rupert Lowe. Farage knows that there are hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised Muslims, many of whom, like his white supporters, are former Labour voters in decaying northern towns. Unnoticed by the national media, Farage has been reaching out to these communities. Imagine Farage's political nous and personal energy allied to the detailed policy work that the Tories are undertaking. Imagine his reach, whether in Hamilton or in some of those Muslim-dominated old industrial towns, complementing the traditional Conservative appeal to property-owners. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. Next year's Scottish elections will be the first test of whether figures on the British Right are prepared to put country before party. A possible by-election in Jacob Rees-Mogg's old seat may be another. But one thing is already clear. If the two parties are taking lumps out of each other all the way to the next general election, they will lose – and they will deserve to. 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.
