Latest news with #AssistedSuicideBill
Spectator
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
What the kids get right about the assisted dying bill
The brothers Grimm knew that it sometimes takes a child to call out what grown-ups think but dare not say. Whether it is that the emperor wears no clothes or that our parliamentarians show little compassion, you can count on children to speak the truth. Take the latest report from the Children's Commissioner, Rachel de Souza. Asked about the Assisted Suicide Bill, which reaches report stage this week, the teenage respondents' approach is thoughtful and compassionate. In stark contrast to the shallow and weaselly debate that supporters of the Bill have engaged in, here are 15- and 16-year-olds who address the ethical dilemma head-on, pointing out that the legislation risks making 'some lives more valuable than others'. They ask, 'is life with a disability not worth living?' All share an understanding of the potential for coercion and discrimination inherent in the Bill in its current formulation: 'What if', asks one 16-year-old girl, 'it ends up removing people from society that people don't want in society?' Some of the respondents are disabled themselves, while others have family members who are approaching their end of life.
Daily Record
13-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Record
What is Assisted Dying and how would a new law work in Scotland?
MSPs will vote on whether the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill should clear its first parliamentary hurdle. Today's landmark vote could see Assisted Dying taking a big step forward to becoming legalised in Scotland. MSPs will be given a free vote on the subject following months of debate. What does Assisted Dying mean? There is some debate over the exact terminology, but Assisted Dying generally refers to a person who is terminally ill receiving lethal drugs from a medical practitioner, which they administer themselves. This differs from Assisted Suicide, which means intentionally helping another person to end their life, including someone who is not terminally ill. That could involve providing lethal medication or helping them travel to another jurisdiction to die. Why do supporters want the law to change? Campaigners argues the law needs changing because some people suffer agonising deaths, however good their end-of-life or palliative care is. The Dignity in Dying campaign group says an estimated 650 people with terminal illnesses already choose to end their lives each year, "often in lonely and traumatic ways". How would the new law work? If passed by MSPs, eligible applicants would have to be resident in Scotland for at least 12 months, as well as be registered with a local GP. Those making the request must be suffering from a terminal illness, but also have the mental capacity to make the request. A patient could only request medical assistance to end their life if they had been ruled mentally fit to make the decision by two doctors. Why are people opposed to the law being changed? There are variety of objections from individuals and organisations on ethical and religious grounds. John Swinney has argued it would "fundamentally alter the relationship between patients and clinicians" and there would be a "real danger of undermining the role we all believe is effectively performed by medical professionals of protecting and enhancing human life". Has this been voted on before? This will be the third time Holyrood has considered the issue. In 2010, MSPs rejected Margo MacDonald's End of Life Assistance Bill by 85 votes to 16. The independent MSP, who had Parkinson's Disease, died in 2014 and the cause was taken up by Patrick Harvie of the Scottish Greens. The following year, his Assisted Suicide Bill was rejected by 82 votes to 36.
The Independent
11-02-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Kim Leadbeater denies watering down safeguards on assisted dying bill
Kim Leadbeater has insisted that her assisted dying bill is not being watered down after she announced plans to remove the need for a High Court judge to sign off applications. Ms Leadbeater was reacting to a furious backlash to her plans after veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott led calls for the assisted dying legislation to be voted down with the biggest safeguard in the bill set to be removed. Responding to critics on Radio 4's Today programme, Ms Leadbeater said: 'It wouldn't be done in private, it would be taking into account patient confidentiality, but there would be public proceedings. "And, actually, I think it's really difficult to suggest that by having three experts involved in this extra layer of scrutiny that is somehow a change for the worse." Instead, psychiatrists and social workers would be involved in approving applications as part of a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission, under proposals aimed at beefing up safeguards under the new law. The commission would be led by a high court judge or senior former judge who would receive all applications and reports from two independent doctors, which would then be referred to a three-member panel chaired by what has been described as a senior legal figure. Ms Leadbeater said the panel would be 'wholly independent' and would need to be satisfied the decision by the dying person was 'voluntary and not the result of pressure or coercion, and that the person had the capacity to make that decision'. Reacting last night, a number of MPs warned that the changes meant that promised safeguards in the legislation would not be strong enough. The row came after the Law Society also raised concerns over the lack of strength in the original safeguards even before the bill was amended. On X last night, Ms Abbott said: 'Safeguards on the Assisted Dying Bill are collapsing. Rushed, badly thought-out legislation. Needs to be voted down.' Former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron added: 'Lots of MPs voted for the bill at second reading in the expectation that there would be stronger safeguards added at committee stage and yet we now see that even the weak safeguards that existed, are being dropped.' And Tory MP Danny Kruger, who led the opposition at its second reading, said: 'Approval by the High Court - the key safeguard used to sell the Assisted Suicide Bill to MPs - has been dropped. Instead we have a panel, NOT including a judge, of people committed to the process, sitting in private, without hearing arguments from the other side. A disgrace.' In its submission, the Law Society warned the safeguards as originally proposed were not strong enough but had questioned the role of the courts in the original legislation because of an impact on resources. It warned the need for High Court approval and its impact on court resources must be addressed. The Law Society said: 'If Parliament deems this step necessary, then the Bill needs to be clear on how the High Court will deal with the applications and increased workload. Lawyers may have a role in providing advice and representation, in which case legal aid should be made available on a non-means-tested basis.' But it raised concerns about a lack of information required to justify deaths. It added: 'Currently, medical practitioners do not need to provide reasons for their conclusions in statements after conducting assessments. Parliament should consider requiring more information to be recorded, to help the High Court assess whether the scheme's requirements have been met. 'Regulations, codes of practice and guidance on core issues must be publicly consulted and published before any changes take effect. They should be reviewed regularly to ensure they remain fit for purpose.' Ms Leadbeater is expected to bring forward amendments for a so-called 'judge plus' system, after hearing concerns during expert evidence sessions last month. A group of 23 MPs on the bill committee is preparing to undertake line-by-line scrutiny of the proposed legislation from Tuesday, with the process expected to last weeks. As it stands, the Bill could see terminally ill adults in England and Wales with under six months to live legally allowed to end their lives, subject to approval by two doctors and a High Court judge. Ms Leadbeater had already argued the High Court approval element makes her proposed legislation the strictest in the world. Fears around people feeling coerced into an assisted death have been raised before, during and since the debate around a new law. Among the expert evidence to the committee in January, learning disability charity Mencap warned of the 'extremely risky and dangerous moment' an initial conversation about the option of assisted dying could be. Ms Leadbeater has already shared her proposal that doctors would be required to set out a range of other options available to a patient if they discuss assisted dying. On the latest proposed changes, she said: 'Many of those who gave evidence to the committee, either in person or in writing, recommended an enhanced role for professionals such as psychiatrists and social workers. 'I agree that their expertise in assessing that a person is able to make a voluntary decision free from coercion or pressure, in addition to the necessary legal checks, will make the system even more robust.' Ms Leadbeater said she was also conscious of England's chief medical officer Professor Sir Chris Whitty's evidence about keeping safeguards as simple as possible. He told MPs what is not wanted is for a person with a life expectancy of six months to be 'stuck in a bureaucratic thicket'. Ms Leadbeater said the two independent doctors would be required to submit reports to the panel on each person applying to the commission for permission to die. The panel would then decide whether they needed to make further inquiries, including hearing from the dying person, the doctors or anyone else. Ms Leadbeater said the commission would report each year on the number and nature of all applications referred to it, and whether they were approved or rejected. No date has been given yet for the Bill to return to the Commons for further debate by all MPs at the report stage, but it is likely to be towards the end of April.
The Guardian
11-02-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Assisted dying bill has lost Commons majority now high court signoff abandoned, says MP
Good morning. In parliament MPs and peers don't simply vote yes or no on proposed legislation. They debate it at length, over weeks and months, and consider amendments line by line. This process is at the heart of parliamentary democracy, and it happens like this so that bills, in theory, can be improved before they reach the statute book. There is a good example of this today. The terminally ill adults (end of life) bill is perhaps the most consequential bill going through this session of parliament and the Labour MP who has sponsored it, Kim Leadbeater, has announced a significant change. As Jessica Elgot reports, she wants to scrap the requirement for an assisted dying application to be approved by a high court judge, because the judiciary said this process would be too time-consuming and would clog up the courts. Instead an expert panel, with a legal chair, would vet the assisted dying applications already approved by two doctors. Leadbeater has written an article for the Guardian explaining her reasoning here. In the article Leadbeater claims the change will make her bill 'even more robust'. And she is calling it 'Judge Plus' implying it involves a safeguard that goes beyond the original one, sign-off by a judge. (She is using this term because a judge would chair the commission that appoints the expert panels. But the panels actually taking the final decisions would not be led by judges, and so arguably that is more spin than accurate labelling.) In interviews this morning Leadbeater argued that the tabling of the amendment showed the parliamentary process operating exactly as it is meant to. She told the Today programme: I would say this is exactly what the process is designed to do, and the purpose of having such a comprehensive bill committee procedure hearing from over 50 witnesses. What's the point of having witnesses if we don't listen to them, and we don't listen to the expertise that they provide? But, whatever it says in the textbooks about democratic theory, in practice governments are normally very reluctant to start tinkering with the wording of legislation once a bill has started its progression through parliament. That is because any amendment is seen by opponents as a sign of weakness. And that is exactly what has happened now with the assisted dying bill. Danny Kruger, the MP who is leading opposition to the bill (he is a Conservative, but it is free vote, conscience legislation, and so party labels are not particularly relevant), posted this on social media last night. Approval by the High Court - the key safeguard used to sell the Assisted Suicide Bill to MPs - has been dropped. Instead we have a panel, NOT including a judge, of people committed to the process, sitting in private, without hearing arguments from the other side. A disgrace And on the Today programme he suggested that this amendment meant that, when MPs voted to back the bill by 330 votes to 275 at second reading, they were doing so on a false premise. I have to ask why, if this is the plan, why this isn't the plan that was put to MPs when the whole House of Commons voted it through at second reading. At that point the point was made very strongly that the principal safeguard for the bill, the way people could have confidence that it was going to be safe for vulnerable people, was that there would be a high court judge approving the application. That's now being removed. I don't think it would have passed the House of Commons if this new system – which doesn't involve a judge, it is involves a panel of people all of whom, presumably, are assisted to the principle of assisted dying, not an impartial figure like a judge would be – [was in place]. Kruger was implying the Commons majority for the bill will now have gone. Here is the agenda for the day. 9.25am: MPs on the public bill committee for the assisted dying bill begin their line by line scrutiny of the bill. 9.30am: The Office for National Statistics publishes the latest data on wellbeing. Morning: Keir Starmer chairs cabinet. 11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing. 11.30am: Wes Streeting, the health secretary, takes questions in the Commons. 2.30pm: Sue Gray, Starmer's former chief of staff, takes her seat in the Lords. If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line or message me on social media. I can't read all the messages BTL, but if you put 'Andrew' in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word. If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary. I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can't promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog. Share
Yahoo
11-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
‘Replacing judge with experts will not move assisted dying behind closed doors'
Replacing a High Court judge's oversight of the assisted dying Bill with an expert panel will not send the process behind closed doors, the MP leading the law change has insisted. Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, is expected to bring forward amendments for a so-called 'judge plus' system, after hearing concerns during expert evidence sessions last month. Under the proposals, psychiatrists and social workers would be involved in approving assisted dying applications. But opponents of the Bill said the new proposals weaken safeguards, and could lead to applications for assisted dying being held in private. Ms Leadbeater denied this would be the case, telling BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'It wouldn't be done in private, it would be taking into account patient confidentiality, but there would be public proceedings. 'And, actually, I think it's really difficult to suggest that by having three experts involved in this extra layer of scrutiny that is somehow a change for the worse.' As it stands, the Bill could see terminally-ill adults in England and Wales with less than six months to live legally allowed to end their lives, subject to approval by two doctors and a High Court judge. Ms Leadbeater had previously said the High Court approval element made her legislation the strictest in the world. She has now proposed a judge-led Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission that she said would give a greater role to experts, including psychiatrists and social workers, in overseeing applications. The commission would be led by a High Court judge or a former senior judge and receive all applications and reports from two independent doctors, which would then be referred to a three-member panel chaired by what has been described as a senior legal figure. Experts would face a 'very strict recruitment procedure' to sit on the panel, Ms Leadbeater told the BBC. They would examine 'the two key issues that keep coming up in this debate, the issue of assessing capacity and the issue of checking for coercion', the MP told BBC Breakfast. A group of 23 MPs are undertaking line-by-line scrutiny of the proposed legislation from Tuesday, with the process expected to last weeks. Fears about people feeling coerced into an assisted death have been raised before, during and since the debate around a new law. Among the expert evidence to the committee in January, learning disability charity Mencap warned of the 'extremely risky and dangerous moment' an initial conversation about the option of assisted dying could be. Approval by the High Court – the key safeguard used to sell the Assisted Suicide Bill to MPs – has been dropped. Instead we have a panel, NOT including a judge, of people committed to the process, sitting in private, without hearing arguments from the other side. A disgrace — Danny Kruger (@danny__kruger) February 10, 2025 Shadow work and pensions minister Danny Kruger, who has been among the leading critics of the Bill in the Commons, posted on X in reaction to Ms Leadbeater's proposals to amend the Bill. He said: 'Approval by the High Court – the key safeguard used to sell the Assisted Suicide Bill to MPs – has been dropped. 'Instead, we have a panel, NOT including a judge, of people committed to the process, sitting in private, without hearing arguments from the other side. A disgrace.' The Bill will face further scrutiny and votes in the Commons and Lords, meaning any change in the law would not be agreed until later this year at the earliest. After that, it is likely to be at least another two years before an assisted dying service is in place.
