Around 1,000 doctors urge MPs to vote against ‘unsafe' assisted dying Bill
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will return to the House of Commons for debate on Friday, with MPs expected to consider further amendments.
But in a letter, published this week, doctors from across the NHS have urged lawmakers to listen to those 'who would have to deliver the consequences of this deeply flawed Bill'.
They warn the Bill 'poses a real threat to both patients and the medical workforce'.
In its current form the proposed legislation, which applies only to England and Wales, would mean terminally ill adults with only six months left to live could apply for assistance to end their lives, subject to the approval of two doctors and an expert panel.
Last month, MPs approved a change in the Bill to ensure no medics would be obliged to take part in assisted dying.
Doctors already had an opt-out but the new clause extends that to anyone, including pharmacists and social care workers.
Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years.
The letter to MPs said: 'As experienced medical professionals who regularly work with dying patients and who have reviewed the worldwide evidence on assisted dying, it is our opinion that this Bill poses a real threat to both patients and the medical workforce, and we urge you to vote against it.
'We are concerned that the private member's Bill process has not facilitated a balanced approach to the collection of evidence and input from key stakeholders including doctors, people with disabilities and other marginalised groups.
'This Bill will widen inequalities, it provides inadequate safeguards and, in our collective view, is simply not safe.
'This is the most important piece of healthcare legislation for 60 years and we urge you to listen to the doctors who would have to deliver the consequences of this deeply flawed Bill.'
Sir Ed Davey welcomed the letter on Monday, telling Sky News he had 'real concerns'.
'I have voted against this assisted dying legislation, as I did on previous occasions,' the Liberal Democrat leader said.
'I have real concerns about the pressure on individuals, that they will put on themselves, if they think they are a burden on their family, so I welcome this letter.'
He added: 'I hope, as time has gone on, as the arguments have been better exposed, that MPs will switch sides and join the side that I and many MPs are on.'
But Sir Chris Bryant said he would be voting in favour.
The technology minister told Sky News: 'The Government doesn't have a formal position at all and individual members are free to choose how they vote.
'I'm not going to hide my own personal preference. I abstained on the first time round, I decided I wasn't going to vote because I wanted to hear the debate.
'I have listened to a lot of the debate. Of course, I don't want anybody to feel that they are a burden on society and that should lead them towards taking their own life, but I also have heard the cries of people who are absolutely miserable, and that's why I will be voting for the Bill.'
Some of the Bill's opponents have urged MPs to focus on improving end-of-life care rather than legislating for assisted dying.
Ahead of last month's Commons debate on the Bill, two royal medical colleges raised concerns over the proposed legislation.
The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) said it believes there are 'concerning deficiencies', while the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) said it has 'serious concerns' and cannot support the Bill.
Opinions among members of the medical profession remain varied, with TV doctor Hilary Jones describing assisted dying for the terminally ill as 'kind and compassionate', adding that he would help a patient to end their life if the law was changed.
The GP, often seen on ITV's Good Morning Britain and the Lorraine show, told the PA news agency he believes medicine will go 'back to the Dark Ages' if proposed legislation being considered at Westminster is voted down.
While Friday is expected to see debate on further amendments to the Bill, it is thought a vote on the overall legislation might not take place until the following Friday, June 20.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
Roll up, roll up for the Rachel Reeves buy now, pay later spending review
It was the Klarna spending review. (If you're wondering what I'm on about, please do bear with me.) Klarna, you see, is the buy now, pay later shopping app beloved by zoomers, which offers the opportunity to pay for your shopping in 30 days or three monthly instalments, depending on your status and the shop you're buying from. The problem with it is that it is a marvellous way of building up bills, debts, and big problems that will come back to bite you if you're not careful. This is the principal issue with the government's spending review. Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivered big number after big number. 'Labour choices', she declared, to get Britain moving again. Billions will be pumped into clean energy, carbon capture and nuclear power. There will be extra cash for the NHS. Defence spending is being pushed up to 2.6 per cent of GDP, if one includes the extra money for the spooks. There's more money for free school meals and to fix crumbling classrooms. A veritable treasure chest. And, as we already know, the decision to means-test the pensioners' winter fuel payment was (largely) reversed so that 75 per cent of them will now get it. However, at the same time, Reeves made clear that she planned to stick by her fiscal rules that say day-to-day spending must be paid for by tax receipts. There should be no current account deficit. Now, it is true that a big chunk of what was announced (or re-announced) will be covered by extra borrowing. Per those rules, she is allowed to borrow to invest, which covers things like energy and the announcements on rail, prisons and social housing. There is a lot of borrowing going towards this new investment spending – some £140bn. However, borrowing to invest is generally considered to be good borrowing. There is a caveat. To make it work, those investments need to produce an economic return. Will the government's plans do that? That is a very big – and open – question. The NHS, schools, policing, defence, local government and more are largely covered by day-to-day spending. Here, things are going to be less cheerful than Reeves would have us believe, except for the review's clear winners, health and defence. 'To make sense of today's spending review, you need to understand what the government is calling Phase One and Phase Two. Phase One is last year and this year, 2024-25 and 2025-26,' the non-partisan number crunchers at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) explained. 'Phase Two starts next year, 2026-27, covers the rest of the parliament, and is the focus of today's announcements. Take Phase One and Phase Two together, as the government does, and growth in government spending looks rather strong. Take Phase Two only and things look tighter.' So far, so familiar. It doesn't matter which party they come from; chancellors always quote big numbers that apply a glossy coat of paint to their speeches in the House of Commons, while leaving the gritty reality to the swathe of accompanying documents. It is pushing it to describe what the IFS found in those documents concerning Phase Two as austerity 2.0. But it still looks set to get rather chilly for several departments, potentially enough to draw blood. Even the schools budget is being frozen in real terms, at least if you strip out the extra for free school meals. Now consider what happens when future pay settlements are factored in. There may be trouble ahead. So where does Klarna come in? None of this changes the chancellor's big problem, namely the amount of fiscal headroom she has within those rules. There is barely any. But there were no announcements on any tax changes, because they are saved for the autumn Budget. Last year, this was unveiled at the end of October. If Reeves holds to form, this year's will be with us in just over three months' time. Watch the government's monthly borrowing figures carefully from now on. The recent ones have made for difficult reading for the chancellor. UK Plc has been writing many more IOUs than she would like, and than the economists expected. The progress of the economy hasn't been terrible, but it has hardly been going gangbusters, to quote the previous PM. Reeves had a lot of fun brandishing big numbers and blowing (not undeserved) raspberries at the opposition. But unless the economy or those borrowing figures improve quite significantly, her next big event will not be anything like as much fun for her, and especially not for us.
Belfast Telegraph
an hour ago
- Belfast Telegraph
Fact check: 2025 spending review claims
On Wednesday Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves delivered the Labour Government's first spending review, outlining its spending plans for the next few years. We've taken a look at some of the key claims. How much is spending increasing by? At the start of her speech Ms Reeves announced that 'total departmental budgets will grow by 2.3% a year in real terms'. That headline figure doesn't tell the full story, however. Firstly, 2.3% is the average annual real-terms growth in total departmental budgets between 2023/24 and 2028/29. That means it includes spending changes that have already been implemented, for both the current (2025/26) and previous (2024/25) financial years. The average annual increase between this year and 2028/29 is 1.5%. Therefore, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said, 'most departments will have larger real-terms budgets at the end of the Parliament than the beginning, but in many cases much of that extra cash will have arrived by April'. Secondly, it's worth noting that the 2.3% figure includes both day-to-day (Resource DEL) and investment (Capital DEL) spending. Capital spending (which funds things like infrastructure projects) is increasing by 3.6% a year on average in real terms between 2023/24 and 2029/30, and by 1.8% between 2025/26 and 2029/30. Day-to-day departmental budgets meanwhile are seeing a smaller average annual real-terms increase – of 1.7% between 2023/24 and 2028/29 and 1.2% between 2025/26 and 2028/29. Which departments are the winners and losers? Ms Reeves touted substantial spending increases in some areas (for example, the 3% rise in day-to-day NHS spending in England), but unsurprisingly her statement did not focus on areas where spending will decrease. Changes to Government spending are not uniform across all departments, and alongside increases in spending on things like the NHS, defence and the justice system, a number of Government departments will see their budgets decrease in real terms. Departments facing real-terms reductions in overall and day-to-day spending include the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (this factors in reductions in aid spending announced earlier this year to offset increased defence spending), the Home Office (although the Government says the Home Office's budget grows in real terms if a planned reduction in asylum spending is excluded) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Did the Conservatives leave a '£22 billion black hole'? Ms Reeves made a claim we've heard a number of times since it first surfaced in July 2024 – that the previous Conservative government left a '£22 billion black hole in the public finances'. That figure comes from a Treasury audit that forecast a £22 billion overspend in departmental day-to-day spending in 2024/25, but the extent to which it was unexpected or inherited is disputed. The IFS said last year that some of the pressures the Government claimed contributed to this so-called 'black hole' could have been anticipated, but others did 'indeed seem to be greater than could be discerned from the outside'. An Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) review of its March 2024 forecast found an estimated £9.5 billion of additional spending pressures were known to the Treasury at that point in time, but were not known to the OBR as it prepared its forecast. It's true that this review didn't confirm the £22 billion figure, but it also did not necessarily prove that it was incorrect, because Labour's figure included pressures which were identified after the OBR prepared its forecast and so were beyond the scope of the OBR's review. We've written more about how the Government reached the figure of £22 billion in our explainer on this topic. How big is the increase in NHS appointments? Ms Reeves took the opportunity to congratulate Health Secretary Wes Streeting for delivering 'three-and-a-half million extra' hospital appointments in England. The Government has previously celebrated this as a 'massive increase', particularly in light of its manifesto pledge to deliver an extra two million appointments a year. Ms Reeves' claim was broadly accurate – data published last month shows there were 3.6 million additional appointments between July 2024 and February 2025 compared to the previous year. But importantly that increase is actually smaller than the 4.2 million rise that happened in the equivalent period the year before, under the Conservative government – as data obtained by Full Fact under the Freedom of Information Act and published last month revealed. What do announcements on asylum hotels, policing, nurseries and more mean for the Government's pledges? Ms Reeves made a number of announcements that appear to directly impact the delivery of several pre-existing Labour pledges, many of which we're already monitoring in our Government Tracker. (We'll be updating the tracker to reflect these announcements in due course, and reviewing how we rate progress on pledges as necessary). The Chancellor announced an average increase in 'police spending power' of 2.3% a year in real terms over the course of the review period, which she said was the equivalent of an additional £2 billion. However, as police budgets comprise a mix of central Government funding and local council tax receipts, some of this extra spending is expected to be funded by increases in council tax precepts. Ms Reeves said this funding would help the Government achieve its commitment of 'putting 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and special constables into neighbourhood policing roles in England and Wales', a pledge we're monitoring here. The spending review also includes funding of 'almost £370 million across the next four years to support the Government's commitment to deliver school-based nurseries across England', which Ms Reeves said would help the Government deliver its pledge to have 'a record number of children being school-ready'. The Chancellor also committed to ending the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by the end of this Parliament, with an additional £200 million announced to 'accelerate the transformation of the asylum system'. When we looked last month at progress on the Government's pledge to 'end asylum hotels' we said it appeared off track, as figures showed the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels was higher at the end of March 2025 than it was when Labour came into Government.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Government can hit NHS waiting times targets despite scepticism, says Reeves
The Chancellor has insisted the Government can hit its NHS waiting times targets despite scepticism from some leaders. Speaking after her spending review, Rachel Reeves said the Government was confident it could hit pledges set down by the Prime Minister last year. Sir Keir Starmer said in December the NHS will carry out 92% of routine operations within 18 weeks by March 2029. However, in March this year, the NHS waiting list for hospital treatment in England rose for the first time in seven months. The Times has also reported that internal Department of Health modelling shows the NHS is on course to hit only about 80% by the end of the parliament, with officials suggesting anything above that is overly optimistic. Asked about the pledge on Wednesday afternoon, Ms Reeves told reporters: 'We've already delivered around three-and-a-half million additional appointments since we came to office last July. 'Waiting lists are already down by 200,000 so we are confident that we can meet our plan for change commitments because of the 3% annual increase in funding for the National Health Service. 'On top of that of course, we're investing in capital spending in the NHS, including in more scanners, but also investment in the NHS digital app to make it easier for patients to access information, to book services, to take some of the costs out of the bureaucracy, as well in running our health service.' Earlier, the 3% increase in real terms for the health service per year in the spending review was welcomed by health leaders but there were warnings it is not enough. Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which represents all health organisations, said the NHS funding boost was welcome, 'given the precarious state of public finances and will help the NHS to cope with rising demand from an aging population, often with multiple or more complex physical and mental health conditions'. But he warned 'difficult decisions will still need to be made as this additional £29 billion won't be enough to cover the increasing cost of new treatments, with staff pay likely to account for a large proportion of it'. He added: 'So, on its own, this won't guarantee that waiting time targets are met.' Mr Taylor said NHS leaders will need continued backing from the Government to redesign services and balance budgets. 'That means getting political backing when some services are redesigned or cut, including moving hospital services into the community and closer to people's homes as part of the Government's three shifts,' he said. He added that the 'flat settlement' from the Chancellor 'continues to leave a major shortfall in capital funding, and it also fails to lift the ban on private investment that is required to boost NHS capital funding'. There is currently an almost £14 billion maintenance backlog bill to repair NHS hospitals and buildings. Mr Taylor said those issues needed to be addressed in the upcoming national infrastructure strategy and 10-year plan for the health service. Government documents accompanying the spending review show that, on average, from 2023-24 to 2028-29, the NHS in England will receive 3% real terms growth in day-to-day spending, equivalent to a £29 billion real terms increase in annual budgets. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) budget will increase by £2.3 billion in real terms by 2029-30, compared with 2023-24, 'representing a more than 20% real terms increase by the end of the spending review period', the documents said. Overall, the figures suggest DHSC spending will rise 2.8%, though this is less than the average 3.6% in recent years. Sarah Woolnough, chief executive of the King's Fund charity, said the 2.8% average increase in DHSC spending – or 3% for day-to-day NHS spending – 'will have been hard-fought for in the spending round negotiations, despite still being lower than the historical average the NHS has received over recent years'. She added: 'We know there are already trade-offs happening in the NHS due to tight finances. 'The Chancellor said she wants the public to have an NHS there when they need it. 'It is hard to see how all the things she mentions: faster ambulance times; more GP appointments; and adequate mental health services and more; can be met on this settlement alone. 'Particularly when large parts of this additional funding will be absorbed by existing rising costs, such as the higher cost of medicines, which are currently being negotiated, and covering staff pay deals.' According to spending review documents, the Government expects the NHS to deliver 2% productivity growth each year, 'unlocking £17 billion savings over three years' to reinvest back into the NHS to improve patient care. The Government will also invest up to £10 billion in NHS technology and digital transformation by 2028‑29, the documents showed. NHS England boss Sir Jim Mackey, speaking at the NHS ConfedExpo conference in Manchester, said the NHS has done 'really well relative to other parts of the public service'. He added: 'But we all know it's never enough because of the scale of advancement, all the ambition, all things we want to do, the day-to-day cost pressures we're trying to get on top of, etc. 'We're always going to be in a world where we want more money, but I think everyone's starting to accept and understand that we've got what the country can afford to give us. 'We really need to get better value for that money – it is broadly the equivalent of the GDP of Portugal, so it's a huge amount of money by any standards.' NHS England has already budgeted a 2.8% increase in pay for staff in 2025-26, but many leaders the King's Fund spoke to were worried about funding pay rises above this amount. After the spending review, Royal College of Nursing (RCN) general secretary, Professor Nicola Ranger, said staff will now decide whether the 3.6% pay rise offered by the Government is enough. She added: 'Against a backdrop of other cuts, nursing staff will see the NHS being protected but not transformed by today's spending plans. 'When the Government lays out its vision for the future of the NHS and its workforce, it must say how it intends to reverse collapsing student recruitment, boost retention and deliver urgent, structural reform to nursing pay.' Nuffield Trust senior policy analyst, Sally Gainsbury, said: 'Compared to the settlements for other departments – from policing to education – the NHS deal looks generous. 'But seen in the context of all the promises made by the Government to the British people – to drive down waiting lists, shift care closer to home, rapidly improve tech – and the commitments to meet staff pay demands and rising costs of new drugs, today's settlement soon melts away. 'With capital funding staying flat in real terms for the rest of the spending review period, it will be difficult for the NHS to invest in the technology and facility upgrades it needs to meet the Government's ambitious productivity targets.'
