Assisted dying coercion risk greater for disabled people – Tanni Grey-Thompson
Discrimination faced by disabled people could mean they are more likely to be coerced into an assisted death if a proposed law change goes ahead, Paralympian Tanni Grey-Thompson has warned.
The crossbench member of the House of Lords said people had told her they would want to end their own lives if they found themselves in her position.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will 'fundamentally' change disabled people's relationship with society, Baroness Grey-Thompson also told a gathering in Westminster aimed at sharing the testimonies of people opposed to it.
Proposals to change the law are not Government legislation, but are being sponsored by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater as they make their way through the Commons.
The Bill has undergone significant changes aimed at safeguarding the proposed assisted dying service against abuse or exploitation, since it first succeeded in an initial Commons vote in November.
The High Court safeguard has been dropped and replaced by expert panels, while the implementation period has been doubled to a maximum of four years for a service to be in place should the Bill pass into law.
It is set to return for report stage on May 16 when MPs are expected to vote on further amendments.
'Low-level discrimination' against disabled people in society has 'risen remarkably' in recent months amid discussion of the Government's reforms to the welfare system, Lady Grey-Thompson told the gathering of parliamentarians and campaigners.
She suggested this was indicative of wider societal judgements about disabled people, and could influence how the law would operate in practice.
Sharing her experience after one assisted dying debate, the peer added: 'Some of you will have heard me say this before, but I was in central lobby, I came out of a debate the last time we were doing this. Somebody stopped me and said, 'If my life is like yours, I'd want to kill myself'.'
'So I'm really conscious of all these challenges that exist for disabled people,' she added.
The crossbench peer said doctors and police are already unable to 'spot coercion in domestic abuse relationships'.
She asked: 'So why is it they are going to suddenly be able to spot it in this? They're not.
'This fundamentally changes our relationship with society. Every disabled person who writes to me – and they do write quite a lot – is absolutely terrified about what this means for them.'
Held in a parliamentary committee room, the meeting was called to give those opposed to the Bill, and who had not been called to speak during the scrutiny process, a chance to air their views.
Actor Liz Carr, who has also campaigned against the Bill, said she and other disabled people were terrified by the prospect it would allow doctors to raise the issue of assisted dying with terminally ill patients as a treatment option.
She said: 'When you are unwell, you go to the doctor, you go to the expert, and as confident that we like to think we are, as an all-encompassing, in-control, autonomous being, when a doctor tells you something might be a solution, you listen to them.'
She said she did not believe this was an 'appropriate' option, adding: 'That is an abuse of power, and I believe that is a coercion.'
'The worst is that we choose it for ourselves, because there is no other option,' the campaigner later added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court documents: Trump administration calls for dismissal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia's Maryland case
GREENBELT, Md. () — The Trump administration filed a motion in Maryland's District Court on Tuesday, re-emphasizing its call for the dismissal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia's case against them. This comes less than a week after Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S., having spent months of imprisonment in a Salvadorian facility. The Maryland husband and father now faces criminal charges stemming from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee. Lawyers have been petitioning for his return since his erroneous deportation to El Salvador back in March, with administration officials fighting state and Supreme Court orders directing the government to facilitate his return. RELATED COVERAGE: Kilmar Abrego Garcia accused of years-long conspiracy transporting undocumented aliens to the US In the latest move filed by the defendants in Greenbelt, Md., the government is calling for a stay of all case deadlines and the eventual dismissal of the case against them. Lawyers defending the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initially filed a motion last week, arguing in a one-page notice that since Abrego Garcia has been returned to the U.S., the preliminary injunction should be dissolved. Abrego Garcia's team opposed this request for a stay, that the goverment arranged for Abrego Garcia's return — 'not to Maryland in compliance with the Supreme Court's directive' — but rather to Tennesee 'so that he could be charged with a crime in a case that the Government only developed while it was under threat of sanctions,' court documents read. 'Instead of facilitating Abrego Garcia's return, for the past two months Defendants have engaged in an elaborate, all-of-government effort to defy court orders, deny due process, and disparage Abrego Garcia,' his lawyers stated. His lawyers called the government's efforts 'chilling.' 'Two things are now crystal clear,' court documents state. 'First, the Government has always had the ability to return Abrego Garcia, but it has simply refused to do so.' 'Second, the Government has conducted a determined stalling campaign to stave off contempt sanctions long enough to concoct a politically face-saving exit from its own predicament,' they continued. PREVIOUS COVERAGE: Abrego Garcia to return to US to face charges His team claimed the Trump administration has hidden behind 'questionable assertions' of government privileges and deliberately dragged their feet on discovery, stonewalling Abrego Garcia and the Court's efforts to 'get at the truth.' Even if his return to the U.S. resolved every claim made, the Maryland court still retains jurisdiction to find contempt and impose sanctions against the government, they argued. 093114932274Download In a , DHS lawyers re-emphasized their request for a stay of all case deadlines. Since being ordered on April 4 to 'facilitate … the return of Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States,' the administration said it has 'made diligent efforts to pull down domestic barriers preventing Abrego Garcia from entering our country.' This included 'appropriate diplomatic discussions' with Salvadorian officials to facilitate his release and return to the U.S., the government's attorneys argued in court documents. They called Abrego Garcia's team's response to his return to the U.S. and their fight to keep the Maryland case open 'desperate and disappointing.' INITIAL COVERAGE: Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador due to 'administrative error,' court filings say 'In the face of Abrego Garcia's return to the United States, they baselessly accuse Defendants of 'foot-dragging' and 'intentionally disregard[ing] this Court's and the Supreme Court's orders,' when just the opposite is true,' court documents read. The administration accused the plaintiffs of trying to 'stoke this [Maryland] Court's anger against' them, claiming there was no legal basis for their accusations and arguments. '[T]he proof is in the pudding—Defendants have returned Abrego Garcia to the United States just as they were ordered to do. None of Plaintiffs' hyperbolic arguments change that or justify further proceedings in this matter,' the attorneys for the defendants wrote. The lawyers said they intend to file their motion for dismissal on mootness grounds by June 16. 093114938071-1Download In a statement shared with DC News Now after the government's filing on Tuesday, Abrego Garcia's attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg wrote: Two months ago, the Supreme Court ordered not just that Kilmar Abrego Garcia be released from custody in El Salvador and brought back to the United States, but furthermore that his case be handled 'as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.' That hasn't happened yet, and so there's still work to be done in this case. Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Washington Post
3 hours ago
- Washington Post
Trump says governors should be able to handle disasters without FEMA
President Donald Trump said Tuesday that his administration plans to 'wean' states off of Federal Emergency Management Agency assistance after this year's hurricane season, offering in the most explicit terms yet his plans for states to respond to natural disasters and other emergencies on their own. 'We're moving it back to the states, so the governors can handle. That's why they're governors,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. 'If they can't handle it, they shouldn't be governor.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Six years late and £28bn over budget, this project signals disaster for Ed Miliband's nuclear plans
'Build and repeat.' That is the plan for Sizewell C, the nuclear plant on the Suffolk coast which Ed Miliband has announced plans to pump billions of pounds into. Writing in The Telegraph, he hailed a new 'golden age' for the British nuclear industry, pledging £14.2 billion for two reactors at Sizewell which will, eventually, provide six million homes with electricity. Eventually being the operative word. News that the Government is throwing its weight behind nuclear in the midst of the Energy Secretary's pursuit of net zero was met with relief by some campaigners – and, indeed, by anyone who doesn't want to find themselves plunged into darkness if the grid is forced to grapple with unreliable renewables. But concerns have been raised about the modelling. Sizewell is to be a rinse and repeat of Hinkley Point C, the two-reactor power station in Somerset which has been beset with problems from the moment EDF first broke ground there in early 2017. The Government says it's to be almost an exact replica. Meanwhile on its website, Sizewell C points to 'the benefits of replication'. 'Sizewell C will use the same design as Hinkley Point C,' it adds. It says Hinkley has already 'created a huge workforce and supply chain' and that replication 'means Sizewell C will benefit from all the efficiencies and expertise learnt by our sister project'. Efficiency and expertise. It's one way of summing up Hinkley, though it does rather overlook the £28 billion it has gone over budget to date, the endless delays and challenges from environmentalists, not to mention the international political tensions. China's General Nuclear is a significant shareholder in the project, but in 2023 halted funding for it as relations between London and Beijing worsened; the same year the UK government took over the country's stake in Sizewell C. Meanwhile, work at the site crawls on, its deadline shifting and bill expanding. Still, EDF says Hinkley's second reactor is being built 25 per cent faster than the first unit, and suggests this should be taken as good news for Sizewell's envisaged two reactors, which are, effectively, planned to be the third and fourth in Britain's nuclear quartet. Meanwhile, experts agree it makes sense in principle to transfer the lessons learnt and systems already established at the Somerset site to Suffolk. Iolo James, head of communications at the Nuclear Industry Association, stresses the importance of 'building in fleet rather than building one at a time'. 'The more you build, the cheaper and quicker that is,' he says. That may be true, though there has been nothing cheap or quick about Britain's nuclear renaissance so far. Where we were once pioneers in the push for nuclear power (the world's first commercial-scale nuclear power station came online in Calder Hall, Cumbria, in 1956), decades of sparse investment have meant the UK has now fallen far behind other countries. At Sizewell, many question how possible it will be in practice to shift operations from one side of England to the other. Alison Downes, of the campaign group Stop Sizewell C, suspects the idea that you can simply move teams and processes without a hitch is unrealistic. 'The company want people involved in Hinkley Point C to come over and do what they've done there again at Sizewell C, but unless there's a seamless transition and the roles that they're just finishing at Hinkley start at Sizewell, then the likelihood is those people will go off and find other jobs and then are lost to the supply chain,' she says. 'Hinkley has been delayed, yes, but Sizewell has also been delayed. It's very difficult to get two projects of this size to perfectly dovetail.' Even if they do manage to bring some of that infrastructure across, it's hard to make the case that Hinkley has been a poster project for Britain's nuclear prowess. Last February, EDF said it had taken a near £11 billion hit amid delays and overrunning costs on the project. The month before, it said the plant was expected to be completed by 2031 and cost up to £35 billion. Factoring in inflation, the real figure could be more like £46 billion. It was, let's not forget, initially supposed to have started generating electricity in 2017 and cost £18 billion. When construction finally began the same year, it was expected that the plant would be completed by 2025. It will now come online six years later than that and at more than double the cost of the initial estimate. So not, it would be fair to say, an unmitigated success as major infrastructure projects go. Then again, some would argue successful infrastructure is an oxymoron in Britain today. The latest estimated spend for HS2 is £102 billion – almost double the projected cost. Crossrail cost £4 billion more than expected and weathered significant delays. And across the country, countless projects – bridges, tramlines and motorways – remain unfinished or unbuilt altogether. 'The public expectations on this sort of stuff is so low nowadays,' says Ed Shackle, a researcher at Public First. 'With all of these big promises – and that goes for things like HS2 as well – they are not expecting the Government to do anything. They're very sceptical that the Government could deliver anything big.' The plan to launch us into a nuclear-powered future might sound promising, but can Labour get it done? While the public is supportive of the idea of projects like Sizewell in principle (Public First's polling shows there is a 41 per cent net support for the building of new nuclear power stations) and wants the Government to make big swings, time and again they have seen these things fail or fall by the wayside. 'They think the country is in a very bad way and we need major overhaul, but major projects have been poorly managed and delivered, and in their local areas, people see decline everywhere,' says Shackle. 'They want to see actual delivery behind these big promises.' Downes points out the last update on Hinkley came in January last year, 'when there were still five or six years to go, so there was plenty of time for things to get even worse'. That same month, EDF said further delays were in the offing because of a row about fish. The energy company was struggling to agree protection measures for fish in the River Severn. Fears thousands could be killed in water cooling intakes had 'the potential to delay the operation of the power station'. This was after months of tussling with environmentalists over the plant's seawater cooling system. At the time, Sir Keir Starmer, then in opposition, said delays to Hinkley were evidence of a system that was 'holding us back and stifling growth', citing 'countless examples of Nimbys and zealots gumming up the legal system often for their own ideological blind spots to stop the Government building the infrastructure the country needs'. Now, dovetailing the construction of Sizewell with Hinkley is one of the main things bolstering confidence in the Suffolk project. Stuart Crooks, managing director of Hinkley Point C, said the 'innovation and experience' developed at Hinkley 'will benefit our twin project at Sizewell C from the start'. 'We have trained a new workforce and built the nuclear supply chain,' Crooks says. 'Now those skilled workers and businesses can give Britain the energy security and economic growth it needs at Sizewell C, together with small modular reactors and future large nuclear plants.' Supporters also argue things will be different the second time around. The first nuclear build since the 1990s, Hinkley, they say, was always destined to take longer and cost more than initially predicted. 'It's been well documented that Hinkley has had issues in terms of going over budget, and the timescale,' says James. 'That's predominantly due to the fact that we haven't built a nuclear power station in a generation... We've had to relearn how to build them. 'The way Sizewell will benefit from that is all the learnings from Hinkley will be there for Sizewell and its team when it starts construction in earnest... If you view Sizewell C as unit three and four [after Hinkley's one and two], then you'll see the efficiencies become even greater for that project.' Julia Pyke, joint managing director of Sizewell C, tells The Telegraph the site would be an 'exact copy, above ground, of Hinkley Point C'. 'When the design for Hinkley was brought into the UK, they had to make 7,000 design changes – because we're a copy, the equivalent for us is just 60,' she says. 'What that means in practical terms is that we know, in a way that Hinkley didn't know, how much concrete we need to pour, how much steel we need, how much cable we need to buy; we know how many hours it took to undertake a task for the first unit at Hinkley and the savings they were able to make for the second unit, and we can learn from that. We have a greater cost certainty because of that fixed design.' It sounds promising, but campaigners are less optimistic, pointing out the significant geographical differences between the sites. 'I get the principals behind replication – but the thing you can't do is replicate the site,' says Downes, who understands Sizewell is set to be a more expensive site to develop than Hinkley. 'There are very specific complexities around the Sizewell C site... It's quite likely that any savings they might expect to make through replication will be absorbed in the more complex groundworks.' While Hinkley is 'a dry site', Sizewell C is by the sea. 'It's going to need huge sea defences. They've got to build a crossing over a Site of Special Scientific Interest. They've got to build a deep cut-off wall. There's a lot of associated development that's needed because there's less infrastructure than there is down at Hinkley Point C. These are the sorts of things that concern us.' The Energy Secretary, for his part, is still adamant this is to be the start of a 'golden age'. 'We will not accept the status quo of failing to invest in the future and energy insecurity for our country,' he said. 'We need new nuclear to deliver a golden age of clean energy abundance, because that is the only way to protect family finances, take back control of our energy, and tackle the climate crisis.' He might like to pay a visit to voters on the Suffolk coast who will be looking at Hinkley as a test case and bracing for years spent living down the road from a construction site. 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.
