We need a Royal Commission on assisted dying
Reasonable people may disagree on the principle of assisted dying. Strong moral arguments have been made for and against, weighing individual sovereignty against the dignity of human life. What is not in dispute is that the process through which Kim Leadbeater MP and her allies have sought to change the law has been utterly shambolic.
The Bill presented to Parliament is not fit for purpose, and the debate around it has been unnecessarily rushed, attempting to ram through a highly controversial change without adequate scrutiny. The result is that the Bill that was presented at the Second Reading is quite distinct from that which has emerged from the Committee stage. MPs were promised that a High Court judge would oversee each application. When this proved impractical, their role was removed, with a replacement panel of social workers, psychiatrists and legal figures suggested. Ms Leadbeater has attempted to sell this as making her law 'even more robust'. Many will disagree.
Moreover, both the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Physicians have publicly stated that the Bill is unfit for purpose, raising questions over its practical implementation. The row over Dame Esther Rantzen's suggestion that opposition among MPs is driven by 'undeclared personal religious beliefs' is merely one last indignity in a process filled with them.
It would be better at this point to abandon this undercooked effort at reform, and to establish a Royal Commission to examine the matter properly.
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
30 minutes ago
- New York Times
England's High Court Warns Lawyers to Stop Citing Fake A.I.-Generated Cases
The High Court of England and Wales warned lawyers on Friday that they could face criminal prosecution for presenting to judges false material generated by artificial intelligence, after a series of cases cited made-up quotes and rulings that did not exist. In a rare intervention, one of the country's most senior judges said that existing guidance to lawyers had proved 'insufficient to address the misuse of artificial intelligence' and that further steps were urgently needed. The ruling by Victoria Sharp, president of the King's Bench Division of the High Court, and a second judge, Jeremy Johnson, detailed two recent cases in which fake material was used in written legal arguments that were presented in court. In one case, a claimant and his lawyer admitted that A.I. tools had generated 'inaccurate and fictitious' material in a lawsuit against two banks that was dismissed last month. In the other case, which ended in April, a lawyer for a man suing his local council said she could not explain where a series of nonexistent cases in the arguments had come from. Judge Sharp drew the two examples together using rarely exercised powers that were designed to enable the 'court to regulate its own procedures and to enforce duties that lawyers owe.' 'There are serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused,' she wrote, warning that lawyers could be convicted of a criminal offense or barred from practicing for using false A.I.-generated material. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Dawn French ‘dismisses' Oct 7 Hamas attacks
Credit: X/@Dawn_French Dawn French has been accused of dismissing the Oct 7 Hamas attacks in Israel in a new social media video. The British comedian and actress, 67, posted a video of herself to X in which she appears to mimic Israel's supporters amid the military campaign in Gaza. In the video, published by French on the social media platform on Thursday, she says about the conflict in the Middle East: 'Complicated, no, but nuanced. But [the] bottom line is no.' She then goes on to mimic apparent defences of Israel's military campaign in neighbouring Gaza since the Hamas-led massacre in 2023, saying: ''Yeah but you know they did a bad thing to us'... Yeah, but no. ''But we want that land and there's a lot of history…'. No. 'These people are not even people, are they really?' No.' In response to the viral tweet, which has been viewed more than half a million times in the 24 hours since it was published, Tracy-Ann Oberman, the West End star and playwright, branded French's tone as 'mocking'. The Jewish actress, 58, reposted French's video and said: 'I am so saddened by this post. 'This mocking voice 'bad thing' of October 7 that Dawn (who I revere by the way) appears to be mocking involved the most horrific terrorist attack involving rape, sexual violence, burning alive child, mutilation and the taking of civilian hostages.' She added: 'Why would Dawn seem to deny that which has affected so many of us personally in the most painful way possible. 'I can mourn the horrors of the war in Gaza whilst also remembering the horrors of what started it. Is this how most of our industry feels now – Oct 7 was a 'little thing'? NO!' Israel launched a military campaign in Gaza in response to Hamas's massacre on Oct 7 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed by the terror group and 251 others were taken hostage. There are now 56 hostages still held by Hamas in Gaza, at least 20 of whom are believed to be alive. Israel said its expanded offensive in the Strip, named Operation Gideon's Chariot, will increase the chances of returning the missing. The Hamas-run health ministry that operates in Gaza has said that at least 54,000 people have been killed in the territory during the war. Hamas has rejected proposed ceasefire and hostage release deals that do not guarantee a full Israel withdrawal from the Strip and an end to the war. Other responses to French's post include the financier Ben Goldsmith, who has been a strong defender of Israel's response to the Hamas terrorist attacks. He remarked: 'Wow, this is really bad. Who knew.' Elsewhere, comedy writer and self-described 'champion of Jewish rights' Lee Kern wrote: 'What you sneeringly mock as a 'bad thing' included the grieving children I met in hospital whose friends and family had been murdered, kidnapped and raped and who themselves were coming to terms with their own life-altering injuries. 'It also includes the 1,200 people murdered and tortured on October 7th… you proactively broadcast – with misplaced pride – a wicked glee in your mockery and dismissal of Jewish suffering, pain and death.' In a subsequent post following the criticism by Oberman, French clarified that she did not mean to 'support the atrocities of Oct 7th'. Writing on X, she said: 'I do not say 'a little thing'. In NO WAY do I support the atrocities of Oct 7th. Of course not. Appalling. Horrific. 'But starving innocent children is not the answer. NO is the answer to ALL of it, Tracy.' French has been approached for comment. 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
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Who owns the news? It must not be a group of foreign powers
Who owns the news? Much of the Left has been obsessed with the issue for over a century. They have long railed against press barons and their supposed bias. So it is perhaps surprising that this Labour Government is taking such a lackadaisical approach to foreign states having substantial holdings in British newspapers. The last Conservative government back in December 2023 intervened to put on hold and scrutinise the proposed sale of The Telegraph to a company backed by Sheikh Mansour, the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates. Columnists, including Charles Moore, The Telegraph's former editor, rightly argued that even if there was no actual interference in the newspaper's editorial line, there would be the perception that the paper would no longer be independent. This would fatally undermine the newspaper's standing by throwing away its reputation for fearless reporting, whatever the reality of the situation. The then government listened and last year, in the Digital, Media and Competitions Act, introduced a new regulatory regime to restrict foreign state ownership of newspapers and news magazines. But this Act only set out the broad principle, not the details of how it would be implemented. A total ban would come with its own problems. There would be little risk of editorial interference if, say, the sovereign wealth fund of Norway was a passive investor owning 3pc or 4pc in a UK-listed media company. During the consultations, it was proposed that a 5pc limit may be appropriate to allow for such holdings. Last month the new Government announced that the threshold would not be 5pc, but actually 15pc. I and many of my colleagues in the House of Lords have serious misgivings about this much higher limit, but it is one we can live with. However, there is another aspect of the draft regulations which is unacceptable. The 15pc threshold is not cumulative, it applies to each individual holding. This means that there would be nothing to stop multiple states each owning 15pc of a newspaper. It has been reported that after The Telegraph's proposed takeover by RedBird Capital, Sheikh Mansour intends to retain up to a 15pc stake in the newspaper. With the current proposals there would be nothing to stop, say, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain from each taking 15pc holdings. A cumulative 60pc of a British newspaper owned by foreign states is a very different proposition. The guarantees against foreign control would have evaporated. Has this potential scenario arisen as a result of an oversight by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary? Alongside 50 of my fellow peers, I have written to Ms Nandy asking for clarification. Signatories include former chancellor Lord Lamont, former trade secretary Lord Lilley, long-time chairman of the 1922 committee Lord Brady, ex-director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald and the current chairman of Ipso, the independent press regulator, Lord Faulks. Our fears could be easily assuaged by simply amending the proposed regulations to ensure that 15pc is a cap on total foreign ownership. If the move is deliberate, it raises serious questions about this Government's commitment to a free press. The statutory instrument implementing the Government's regulations has now been laid and will shortly come before both Houses of Parliament. If the proposals reach the Lords in their current form, I and many of my colleagues will not be able to support the measure. The Telegraph's ownership has been left in limbo for two years so far. It is time for the new regulatory framework to be put in place that will allow its smooth transfer to new owners. But this must be done in a way that entrenches the traditional freedoms of our press. The issues are much wider than the future of just one newspaper. 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.
