Latest news with #AssistedDying
Daily Mail
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
SARAH VINE: The rules on assisted dying and abortion aren't perfect. But no one has come up with anything better
Death, it seems, is a live topic in Westminster. On the one hand we have Kim Leadbeater's ill-thought-out and chaotic Assisted Dying Bill; on the other Stella Creasy's newest attempt to reform abortion laws so that women like Nicola Packer, who took pills while 26 weeks pregnant resulting in the death of the foetus, cannot be prosecuted. They say politics is a deadly business, but this is taking it to a whole new level. It all comes down to 'human rights' of course.
Daily Mail
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
DAILY MAIL COMMENT: This Bill is mired in confusion and doubt
There is something distasteful about the way supporters of the Assisted Dying Bill are trying to bulldoze this chaotic piece of legislation through Parliament. The fact that its proposer, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, tabled no fewer than 44 amendments when the Bill returned to the Commons yesterday shows just how dangerously unformed it is. She shows every sign of making it up as she goes along, sowing doubt and confusion with each faltering step. Yet opponents expressing concern over the Bill's manifold shortcomings are accused of scaremongering or standing in the way of the 'human right' to choose the timing and manner of one's death. It's a strangely inverted form of moral blackmail when those who express unease about giving the state the power to end the lives of its citizens are branded as 'inhumane'. The Bill has undergone massive change since passing its second reading in November. Not least of these was ditching the requirement that a High Court judge had to approve any assisted dying decision. Instead, that final endorsement would now be left to an 'expert panel', chaired by a lawyer and including a social worker and psychiatrist. It is symptomatic of this dog's dinner of a Bill that the Royal College of Psychiatrists were not consulted in advance of the change. If they had been, Ms Leadbeater would have known they are against it, warning that the mentally ill could use the legislation to facilitate suicide. Ms Leadbeater said at the outset there would be no 'slippery slope' towards suicide, but many believe we are already on one. As Tory MP Rebecca Paul put it during yesterday's debate: 'We have moved from a proposal to provide a humane end to someone's pain in the last months of their life to providing an assisted death service to those who choose it for any reason.' In ethical, legal and practical terms there could not be a more complex or emotionally charged issue than allowing people the right to die. Anyone who has seen a friend or relative in extreme pain and discomfort at the end of life will understand the power of the argument. But that is precisely why any change in legislation must be carefully and dispassionately thought through – both benefits and pitfalls. In Canada and Holland, where assisted suicide has been legal for some years, it now accounts for around 5 per cent of all deaths. Included in the toll are those with autism, depression, dementia, anorexia and elderly who feel (or are made to feel) they have become a burden. Do we want to go in that direction? One of the fundamental problems with the proposed legislation is that it springs from a private member's bill, rather than being tabled by government. This means no Whitehall groundwork was done in advance, nor any proper debate held. Ms Leadbeater may be sincere, but she is inexperienced and wholly unqualified to steer a Bill of such huge import through Parliament. In encouraging her, Sir Keir Starmer bears much of the blame for this fiasco. If he believed the time was right for a full debate on assisted dying, he should have brought it forward himself, not cravenly slip it in through the back door. Such lack of political courage and commitment speaks volumes about his government. And it has consequences. In its current form, this Bill is not only dangerous, it's unworkable.
Sky News
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Sky News
What was behind Starmer's 'Enoch Powell' moment?
👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈 Another week, another sticky situation for the prime minister and some of his MPs - this time it's centred around his language on immigration. When Sir Keir Starmer announced his White Paper, he argued that Britain "risked becoming an island of strangers" if immigration levels were not cut. So was he intentionally evoking Enoch Powell's infamous 1968 Rivers Of Blood speech? Or was this a big mistake? Also, with the Assisted Dying Bill back in parliament this week, Beth Rigby, Ruth Davidson and Harriet Harman go on a tour of the British Isles to look at how different parliaments are approaching their legislation. If MPs in Westminster vote their bill down, could it stop it in its tracks in Holyrood too?
Telegraph
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
The Daily T: Lowe – 'Farage is leading a cult, I might start my own party'
As the row inside Reform rumbles on, Camilla speaks to the man behind the headlines: Rupert Lowe. In the wake of his blistering attack on his former ally Nigel Farage, Lowe tells The Daily T the Reform leader is 'running a cult' and a 'narcissist'. He also says he might start a new party to the right of Reform, calling for 'a satisfactory alternative' that is 'more than just a mobile PR machine'. Elsewhere, we also bring you part two of The Daily T's interview with veteran Tory MP and father of the house Sir Edward Leigh, who's leading the charge against Kim Leadbeater's Assisted Dying (Terminally Ill Adults) Bill. MPs will debate and vote on amendments to the bill on Friday, which would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales if it's passed later this summer. Sir Edward explains why he has joined forces with Labour grandee Diane Abbott in an attempt to halt the Bill's progress.
Daily Mail
14-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
Professor June Andrews: I feel the most vulnerable will be pressured to 'choose' death
The approval of the Assisted Dying Bill is a dangerous betrayal - and a tragedy in slow motion. I am shocked, but most of all I am frightened for the people I support - frail older people and families already under unbearable pressure. If some think it is a victory for compassion, I disagree. My career has been working with frail older people, including thousands living with dementia. I understand why people fear a long and difficult decline. I have witnessed grim deaths. And I understand the pressures families feel – financial, emotional, and social – when someone needs care. That's why I believe the Assisted Dying legislation is dangerous, and the people it claims to protect are the ones at greatest risk. Supporters of the Bill say it's about choice. But we don't live in a world where everyone is equally powerful. In my world, people with disabilities and older people are often made to feel like a burden. And law like this can tip the balance toward them 'choosing' death. No matter how carefully drafted, it opens the door to pressure – even if that pressure is not made clear. I see families struggle to fund care. I've heard older people say, 'I don't want to be a burden.' And when there's a cheaper, quicker option on the table, that's dangerous and a profound shift in how we value human life. It becomes another route in the care pathway. And once that happens, some people will feel they ought to take it. The Bill says it excludes people with dementia. But I've studied what happens in other countries. In the Netherlands, where assisted dying is legal, a woman with dementia was euthanised despite her last-minute resistance. Sedatives were put in her coffee. That isn't a civilised end – it's a warning. Is Scotland different? We've been assured that they'd never allow this to happen here. But how confident can we be? We don't have a fully functioning care system. Unpaid carers are exhausted and unsupported. Our hospices are underfunded. To introduce assisted dying now – in this context – is not expanding choice. It's a shortcut. Of course we don't want anyone to suffer. We don't want to see loved ones in pain. But we already have the tools to relieve pain and distress. Good palliative care can make an enormous difference – but it isn't always available. That's where we should focus our efforts, not on legalising suicide. And remember that we already have the legal right to refuse life sustaining care while still receiving pain relief, and comfort. And we already can delegate that instruction to some-one else, in case we lose capacity. That's already more freedom than the Bill offers. And what of the so-called public support? It's claimed people are in favour, but recent research shows only 8 per cent of Scots think this should be a priority for Parliament. Many more are concerned about misuse or that the line between voluntary and coerced death will get blurred. Even those who have been running the NHS and social care for nearly two decades are expressing doubts – John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon have spoken against it. And rightly so. Once a law is passed, it's impossible to stop its expansion. Today it's the terminally ill. Tomorrow it's people who can't 'contribute'. We've seen that pattern before. I don't speak from theory but experience. I've sat with families. I've helped people plan their care. I've seen what support can do – and what the absence of support costs. If Holyrood really wants to show compassion, it should invest in support for unpaid carers, increase palliative care services, and give every Scot the chance to live well until the very end. This Bill offers a false choice. It suggests dignity comes only through control over death. I believe dignity comes from how we care for one another. That's the Scotland I want to live in. *Professor June Andrews OBE is an expert in caring for older frail people and people with dementia, who has worked in academia, the NHS, and government, and the author of Dementia: the One Stop Guide
