This assisted dying Bill must not pass
Tomorrow, MPs will vote on whether Kim Leadbeater's assisted dying Bill should proceed to the House of Lords. They will do so after a process which has been manifestly inadequate for a matter of such gravity.
The decision to pursue this monumental shift in the relationship between doctor and patient, citizen and state through the means of a Private Member's Bill, and Sir Keir Starmer's unwillingness to deviate from the timetable for debating such a measure, meant that the first vote on the Bill took place after just five hours of discussion.
The Committee Stage subsequently saw the Bill which MPs had initially voted on change substantially. The 'strongest set of safeguards and protections in the world' with 'two medical professionals and a High Court judge' overseeing each case were dropped in favour of a panel including a lawyer, psychiatrist and social worker.
Professional organisations, meanwhile, began to come out against the proposals. The Royal College of Pathologists has objected to the practical implications for its members, the Royal College of Psychiatrists that those suffering from 'very treatable' mental disorders could be eligible for the process and the Royal College of Physicians the risk that 'patients may choose assisted dying because they fear their needs would not be met, by services that are currently not adequate'.
It is not necessary to take a position on the principle of assisted dying to take a position on the Bill that is currently before the House of Commons. A rushed parliamentary process has produced a framework riddled with flaws, not the least of which is a danger that young people with anorexia could become eligible through the loopholes left in its wording. Any parent who has watched their child struggle with this disease would expect the state to be on their side in a life and death struggle; a piece of legislation which could do the opposite is unfit for purpose.
There is no shame in voting for a Bill at the Second Reading in the hope it might be improved. There would be, however, in voting to make it law when it is clear that it remains fundamentally flawed. MPs should reject this Bill.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
From national treasure to pompous old fool, Stephen Fry's journey of smuggery is now complete: JAN MOIR
Tread on a worm and it will turn. And Stephen Fry has turned on his former friend JK Rowling, piously branding her a 'lost cause' and accusing her of being 'radicalised' with 'strange' views. Hark at him. He sounds like an Iranian cleric trying to wrestle an impudent girl into a burka, not someone who exults in his laughable reputation as a champion of free speech.
Times
26 minutes ago
- Times
CMA to review wrong turns on road and rail building projects
The UK's competition regulator has opened an investigation into Whitehall's delivery of rail and road infrastructure. The inquiry by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) comes just a day after a damning report into the failed delivery of the HS2 high-speed rail line between London and Birmingham which is hugely over-budget, hopelessly late and which ministers have admitted has made Britain the laughing stock of infrastructure investment. It also follows the government's renationalisation of the railways, which it is planning to complete incrementally over the next couple of years. • What happened to HS2? The project that made Britain a laughing stock The CMA said its inquiry would focus 'on persistent issues around costs and delivery of road and railway infrastructure across the country', especially in the light of Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves's new ten-year infrastructure strategy to help grow the economy. 'There's no question that reliable, high-quality infrastructure is critical in accelerating economic growth,' said Sarah Cardell, chief executive of the CMA. 'To achieve this, public authorities and the civil engineering sector must be able to work together to deliver projects on time, within budget and to high standards. 'This review is a crucial step in identifying barriers holding back the sector — supporting the drive to get Britain building and ensuring every penny spent is delivering value for taxpayers.' Identifying the long-standing friction and dysfunctional procurement engagement between Whitehall and its agencies, and private sector contractors, the CMA inquiry states: 'The market study will examine whether there are opportunities to improve how the public sector and industry work together, for example through improvements to public procurement, so more cost-effective infrastructure can be built in support of the government's growth mission.' • Pumping money into infrastructure may not keep Labour in power The CMA said it would make recommendations to government but does not have the power to intervene in the market directly. Civil engineering is reckoned to be worth £23 billion annually to the UK economy. The National Infrastructure Commission has estimated that public and private sector investment will need to increase by up to 50 per cent over the next decade to deliver more complex infrastructure. Road and railway projects account for up to 75 per cent of government spending on economic infrastructure such as transportation and energy. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors indicated the sector has previously suffered from a lack of what its chief executive Justin Young called a 'clear, joined-up infrastructure strategy that incorporates long-term thinking and vision'. Young said he believes 'the country is on a considerably clearer path and represents a significant shift in how the government approaches infrastructure and industrial capacity', but warned of 'skills and labour shortages [that] stifle construction projects and investment in skills for new professionals'.
Times
26 minutes ago
- Times
Labour's tax strategy under fire as Reeves defends fiscal rules
The chancellor has defended Labour's record as the party of business and its fiscal rules after controversial tax rises, saying the government had stabilised the economy and enabled interest rate cuts. Rachel Reeves told The Times CEO Summit that the government had achieved its 'number one job' to return economic stability after the 'turbulence' of the 'previous decade'. The contentious decision to raise employers' national insurance contributions in October's budget provoked a sharp backlash from business leaders, who had been courted by senior Labour figures in the run-up to July's general election. Bosses have since warned of hiring and investment cuts, while the decision is still being felt in the jobs market and in sentiment.
