
Assisted dying: Medical students voice opposition as some MPs urge vote delay
It is currently expected the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will have its third reading on Friday, with MPs voting to either send it through to the House of Lords or to stop it progressing any further.
It would be the first vote on the overall Bill to take place since November, when the proposed legislation passed second reading stage by a majority of 55 on a historic day which saw MPs support the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales.
But, days ahead of third reading, a group of Labour MPs opposed to the Bill have written to Commons leader Lucy Powell asking for more time to scrutinise a Bill they brand as 'perhaps the most consequential piece of legislation that has appeared before the House in generations'.
They added that it 'alters the foundations of our NHS, the relationship between doctor and patient, and it strips power away from Parliament, concentrating it in the hands of future secretaries of state for health'.
They also raised concerns that MPs might not have a copy of the final Bill by the time they vote, as some outstanding amendments will still be being considered on Friday morning.
The MPs, including Dame Meg Hiller, wrote: 'We implore you as the Leader of the House to allocate more Parliamentary time to the scrutiny of this Bill, the valid concerns that members have about its implementation, and the consequences it could have on vulnerable populations.'
Their letter came as medical students sent their own to MPs, citing concerns about the Bill.
The student doctors, from universities across the UK, said: 'We do not oppose dignified death – far from it. We oppose a Bill that risks offering death in place of care, that widens health inequalities, that places vulnerable patients in danger, and that reshapes the ethical foundation that our profession is built upon without any clear support.
'As future doctors, we may not yet be the voice of this profession – but we will be. And we are asking to be heard.'
But doctor and MP Simon Opher, who backs the Bill, said it is 'no surprise that medical students, like GPs and most other professionals, have a range of opinions on assisted dying'.
He referenced one survey he said had been shared with him and showed a majority of medical students supported assisted dying in cases of terminal illness and unbearable suffering.
The Bill's sponsor, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, has repeatedly stated that her proposed legislation has been strengthened since it was first introduced last year, insisting it is subject to robust safeguards.
As it stands, the Bill 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 decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer voted in favour of the Bill last year, but said the Government remains neutral on the issue.
Both Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood voted against.
Last week, a majority of MPs approve a new clause, tabled by Dame Meg, to ensure medics cannot raise the topic of assisted dying with under-18s.
Her separate amendment to prevent health workers from bringing up the issue with adults patients before they have raised it was voted down.
A ban on advertising assisted dying should the Bill pass into law was also supported.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Herald Scotland
16 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
More and more children aware of nicotine pouches, charity warns
There is currently a lack of evidence on the health effects of the pouches, which are placed under the top lip. The current law means people of any age can also buy them. In February, trading standards teams in Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Dorset warned they were seeing a 'significant growth' in illegal versions containing potentially dangerous levels of nicotine. A new YouGov survey commissioned by the charity Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) has found a growing awareness of nicotine pouches among under-18s – rising from 38% in 2024 to 43% in 2025. Almost 4% of teenagers also report trying the pouches, according to the poll of 2,746 youngsters aged 11 to 17. Ash data also shows that between 2023 and 2025, nicotine pouch use has increased among younger adults aged 18 to 34. Some 2.6% of 18 to 34-year-olds currently use them, compared to 0.2% of those aged over 55. Ash said that while nicotine pouches are less harmful than smoking, there are currently no limits on the strength of the nicotine, and few controls over their marketing and advertising. The Tobacco and Vapes Bill is currently going through Parliament which will ban the advertising and sponsorship of all vapes and other nicotine products (such as nicotine pouches) and ban all vapes and nicotine products (and non-nicotine vapes) from being sold to under-18s. Conservative MP Bob Blackman, co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Smoking and Health, said: 'Many of the big nicotine pouch brands are owned by tobacco companies with decades of experience targeting our children. 'The longer it takes for this Government to regulate, the more time the tobacco industry has to promote their products to the next generation.' Ash said the Government must now prioritise the passage of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. Hazel Cheeseman, chief executive of Ash, said: 'The surge in teen awareness and growing levels of use in young adults over the last two years indicates that the industry's marketing strategies are working. 'Products are highly promoted in shops and on social media with football stars and male influencers used to further raise their profile. 'Nicotine pouches are very likely to be less harmful than smoking. However, they must be properly regulated.' Tobacco and vapes lead for Chartered Trading Standards Institute, Kate Pike, said: 'I hear from trading standards teams across the country who are getting reports from concerned citizens who have seen teenagers being sold these products. 'However, there is no action we can take until the law is changed as no offence is being committed.' A Department of Health and Social Care spokesman said: 'Our landmark Tobacco and Vapes Bill will ban the sale of nicotine pouches to under-18s and stop vapes and nicotine products from being deliberately promoted and advertised to children. 'The Bill will place nicotine pouches under the same advertising restrictions as tobacco and provides powers to regulate their nicotine limits, flavours, packaging and how they are displayed. 'It will stop the next generation from getting hooked on nicotine and put an end to the cycle of addiction and disadvantage.'

Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
MPs to debate and vote on decriminalising abortion
The issue looks likely to be debated and voted on on Tuesday, as part of amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. The latest attempt follows repeated calls to repeal sections of the 19th-century law – the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act – after abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland in 2019. MPs had previously been due to debate similar amendments removing the threat of prosecution against women who act in relation to their own pregnancy at any stage, but these did not take place as Parliament was dissolved last summer for the general election. Earlier this month, a debate at Westminster Hall heard calls from pro-change campaigners that women must no longer be 'dragged from hospital bed to police cell' over abortion. But opponents of decriminalisation warned against such a 'radical step'. Ahead of debate in the Commons, Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi said her amendment would result in 'removing the threat of investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment' of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy. Ms Antoniazzi said the cases of women investigated by police had motivated her to advocate for a change in the law. She said: 'Police have investigated more than 100 women for suspected illegal abortion in the last five years including women who've suffered natural miscarriages and stillbirths. 'This is just wrong. It's a waste of taxpayers' money, it's a waste of the judiciary's time, and it's not in the public interest.' She said her amendment will not change time limits for abortion or the regulation of services but it 'decriminalises women accused of ending their own pregnancies', taking them out of the criminal justice system 'so they can get the help and support they need'. Her amendment is supported by abortion providers including MSI Reproductive Choices and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Bpas) as well as the the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). A separate amendment has also been put forward by Labour MP Stella Creasy and goes further by not only decriminalising abortion, but also seeks to 'lock in' the right of someone to have one and protect those who help them. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) urged MPs to vote against both amendments, saying they would bring about 'the biggest expansion of abortion since 1967'. Alithea Williams, the organisation's public policy manager, said: 'Unborn babies will have any remaining protection stripped away, and women will be left at the mercy of abusers. 'Both amendments would allow abortion up to birth, for any reason. NC20 (Ms Creasy's amendment) is only more horrifying because it removes any way of bringing men who end the life of a baby by attacking a pregnant woman to justice.' Ms Creasy rejected Spuc's claim, and urged MPs not to be 'misled'. She highlighted coercive control legislation, which would remain in place if her amendment was voted through, and which she said explicitly identifies forcing someone to have an abortion as a crime punishable by five years in jail. Abortion in England and Wales remains a criminal offence but is legal with an authorised provider up to 24 weeks, with very limited circumstances allowing one after this time, such as when the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability. The issue has come to the fore in recent times with prominent cases such as those of Nicola Packer and Carla Foster. Ms Packer was cleared by a jury last month after taking prescribed abortion medicine when she was around 26 weeks pregnant, beyond the legal limit of 10 weeks for taking such medication at home. She told jurors during her trial, which came after more than four years of police investigation, that she did not realise she had been pregnant for more than 10 weeks. The case of Carla Foster, jailed in 2023 for illegally obtaining abortion tablets to end her pregnancy when she was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant, eventually saw her sentence reduced by the Court of Appeal and suspended, with senior judges saying that sending women to prison for abortion-related offences is 'unlikely' to be a 'just outcome'. A separate amendment, tabled by Conservative MP Caroline Johnson proposes mandatory in-person consultations for women seeking an abortion before being prescribed at-home medication to terminate a pregnancy. The changes being debated this week would not cover Scotland, where a group is currently undertaking work to review the law as it stands north of the border. On issues such as abortion, MPs usually have free votes, meaning they take their own view rather than deciding along party lines. During a Westminster Hall debate earlier this month, justice minister Alex Davies-Jones said the Government is neutral on decriminalisation and that it is an issue for Parliament to decide upon. She said: 'If the will of Parliament is that the law in England and Wales should change, then the Government would not stand in the way of such change but would seek to ensure that the law is workable and enforced in the way that Parliament intended.'


Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
Sir Sadiq Khan to pedestrianise Oxford Street ‘as quickly as possible'
Two-thirds (66%) of respondents to a consultation support the pedestrianisation plan, Sir Sadiq's office said. A separate YouGov survey conducted in September 2024 indicated 63% of Londoners are in favour of the project. Oxford Street is one of the world's busiest shopping areas, with around half a million visitors each day. Sir Sadiq Khan wants to ban vehicles from a 0.7-mile stretch between Oxford Circus and Marble Arch, with the potential for further changes towards Tottenham Court Road. Detailed proposals for traffic will be consulted on later this year. A previous attempt by Sir Sadiq to pedestrianise that part of Oxford Street was blocked by then-Conservative run Westminster City Council in 2018. His latest proposals depend on him obtaining permission from Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner in her role as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to establish a new Mayoral Development Corporation, which would provide planning powers. The aim is for this to be created by the start of next year. Sir Sadiq said: 'Oxford Street has suffered over many years, so urgent action is needed to give our nation's high street a new lease of life. 'It's clear that the vast majority of Londoners and major businesses back our exciting plans, so I'm pleased to confirm that we will now be moving ahead as quickly as possible. 'We want to rejuvenate Oxford Street; establish it as a global leader for shopping, leisure and outdoor events with a world-class, accessible, pedestrianised avenue. 'This will help to attract more international visitors and act as a magnet for new investment and job creation, driving growth and economic prosperity for decades to come.' Ms Rayner said: 'We want to see Oxford Street become the thriving place to be for tourists and Londoners alike, and that's why we welcome the Mayor of London's bold proposals to achieve that. 'We will support the mayor in delivering this ambitious vision, which will help to breathe new life into Oxford Street – driving investment, creating new jobs for local people and providing a boost to economic growth in the capital.' Adam Hug, leader of Labour-controlled Westminster City Council, said: 'While the mayor's formal decision today was not the City Council's preferred outcome, it is far from unexpected, and it is now important for Oxford Street's future to move forward together. 'Since the mayor's new approach was made public last autumn, Westminster has worked pragmatically and productively with the Greater London Authority (GLA) to ensure that the plan for Oxford Street more closely meets the needs of businesses, visitors, and residents. 'Since 2022, Oxford Street has roared back to life after the pandemic. Such is the level of retail confidence that existing brands have spent £118 million refitting their stores in the last 12 months alone, according to Savills. 'Westminster City Council will work constructively with the mayor's team to ensure the nation's high street is re-imagined in a way that works for visitors, shoppers, and our residents.'