Latest news with #BaronessFinlay
The Independent
2 hours ago
- Health
- The Independent
More than 1,000 doctors urge MPs to vote down ‘deeply flawed' assisted dying bill
More than 1,000 doctors have urged MPs to vote against the assisted dying bill when it returns to the Commons, claiming it is a 'real threat to both patients and the medical workforce'. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would allow terminally ill patients with six months left to live to end their lives, is due to be voted on for a final time on 20 June. Ahead of the vote, in a letter to MPs, doctors from the NHS expressed 'serious concerns', arguing that 'this bill is not the answer". While they acknowledged that there must be a debate on end of life care, they argued too little evidence has been heard from 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,' they wrote, saying the bill is 'deeply flawed'. The letter has been signed by geneticist Sir John Burn, Sir Shakeel Qureshi, who received a knighthood for his work in paediatric cardiology, Professor Aileen Keel, the former deputy chief medical officer for Scotland, and Baroness Finlay, a professor of palliative medicine and member of the House of Lords. In its current form the bill, 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, with approval needed from two doctors and the 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. The letter, seen by Sky News, goes on to say: "Vulnerable patients are at risk of coercion with women, victims of domestic abuse, and the elderly at particular risk. People who struggle to pay for heating or care or wish to preserve their assets for their children are at high risk of choosing to die if the option is available and the alternative is more difficult." Meanwhile, Professor Colin Rees, a member of the Royal College of Physicians working group on assisted dying, said the legislation will 'have very profound consequences for the future and many doctors are really concerned that members of parliament are not hearing the views of the medical profession". "We don't think it's a bill that is safe, that protects patients, protects families, and protects the medical workforce,' he added. But Kim Leadbeater, the bill's sponsor, said assisted dying must be legalised to avoid terminally ill people acting out of desperation or making 'traumatic' trips to Switzerland. Last month, she told the Commons she has heard 'hundreds of stories from people who have lost loved ones in deeply difficult and traumatic circumstances', adding: 'If we do not vote to change the law, we are essentially saying that the status quo is acceptable.' The warning from the doctors came after TV medic Hilary Jones warned that medicine will go 'back to the Dark Ages' if the proposed legislation is voted down. The GP, often seen on ITV's Good Morning Britain and the Lorraine show, said he would help a terminally ill patient to end their life if the law was changed, describing the practice as 'kind and compassionate'. Dr Jones said medics are currently 'looking over their shoulders because of the legal repercussions of the law' as it stands. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Asked about the potential significance if the law changes, Dr Jones said: 'It will relieve healthcare professionals who deal with terminal illness. 'There are wonderful people who are caring and compassionate, who just live in fear of their actions being misinterpreted, of being accused of wrongdoing, and because of that fear, people at the end of life are often undertreated. 'People are looking over their shoulder because of the medications they're using or the doses they're using, it means that patients aren't getting the best palliative care that they could have.'
Sky News
3 hours ago
- Health
- Sky News
More than 1,000 doctors urge MPs to vote against assisted dying bill
More than 1,000 doctors have written to MPs urging them to vote against the assisted dying bill, calling it a "real threat to both patients and the medical workforce". The bill - which is due to be voted on by MPs for a final time on 20 June - would allow terminally ill patients from England and Wales to end their lives "on their own terms", providing they have a life expectancy of six months or less. A separate bill is currently passing through the Scottish parliament. But doctors from across the NHS have written to MPs, warning them of their "serious concerns". Notable signatories include Sir John Burn, a geneticist who has led decades of cancer research, Sir Shakeel Qureshi, who was knighted for his work in paediatric cardiology, Professor Aileen Keel, the former deputy chief medical officer for Scotland, and Baroness Finlay, a Welsh doctor, professor of palliative medicine and member of the House of Lords. The letter is signed by four doctors who hold OBEs, two who have MBEs, and one CBE. The letter says that while a debate is needed on end of life care, "this bill is not the answer". It raises concerns that not enough evidence has been heard from 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," it goes on to say, calling it a "deeply flawed bill". 1:40 Professor Colin Rees, a member of the Royal College of Physicians working group on assisted dying, said it was the "single most important piece of healthcare legislation in 50 or 60 years". "It will have very profound consequences for the future and many doctors are really concerned that members of parliament are not hearing the views of the medical profession." He said many doctors who remain neutral, or who even support the principle of assisted dying, remain concerned about the bill. "We don't think it's a bill that is safe, that protects patients, protects families, and protects the medical workforce." What stage are the two assisted dying bills at now? The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed the House of Commons with a majority of 55 in November. Scotland's Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland Bill) pass with a 14 majority in May. But the legislation has not been without controversy, with 150 amendments made to get it through the first stage. The bill will return to the House of Commons for a third reading this Friday. If voted through by MPs it will then proceed to the House of Lords. 'No safeguards against coercion' One of the areas of concern raised by the medics was the inability to properly identify patients at risk of coercive control. "Vulnerable patients are at risk of coercion with women, victims of domestic abuse, and the elderly at particular risk," the letter says. It also warned it would widen social inequalities, with patients who do not have the resources for a comfortable death more likely to opt for assisted dying. "People who struggle to pay for heating or care or wish to preserve their assets for their children are at high risk of choosing to die if the option is available and the alternative is more difficult." Data from the Annual Report of Dying With Dignity from Oregon in 2024 found 9.3% of those people who choose assisted deaths do so for financial reasons. 'Doctors get it wrong 40% of the time' Concerns have also been raised around the inaccuracies of medical prognosis. "Research demonstrates that doctors get prognosis wrong around 40% of the time," the letter says. "As such, patients may end up choosing an assisted death and losing what could have been happy and fulfilling months or years of life." 1:50 The bill is also a risk to families, the letter says, as it does not require doctors to speak with family members. "A close relative may know nothing until they get a call to arrange collection of their relative's body," it says, adding that there is no mechanism for a family member to raise concerns about a request. The letter also addressed the potential impact on the medical workforce. Evidence from the Netherlands suggests "doctors feel pressurised when dealing with patient requests for assisted deaths, meaning that doctors may end up having involvement despite it being against their principles, because they want to help their patients". Doctors' letter highlight concerns about the risk to: Patients Does not necessitate treatment of depression or other remediable factors; does not protect against risk of coercion, particularly for women and the elderly; does not ensure that the assessment panel must meet the patient; will widen social inequalities, adversely affecting the socioeconomically deprived; does not take account of the inadequacies of assessing medical prognosis. Families Does not necessitate any involvement of families. The first they may know is when they are called to come and collect the body; assumes that an assisted death is 'better' than a well-managed natural death but there is little or no evidence in the literature for this assertion. Palliative care Makes it a legal right for patients to access assisted dying, but does not mandate a comparable right to be able to access other end of life services; means that patients may choose assisted dying because palliative care provision is inadequate • Places palliative care consultants (a speciality in which 80% of doctors are opposed to assisted dying) at the heart of delivering the services; ignores the fact that the UK is currently ranked higher for its palliative care services than any country that delivers assisted dying and the fact that countries that introduce assisted dying almost invariably see a decline in the quality of their palliative care services. The medical workforce Does not adequately recognise the risk of harm to doctors from delivering assisted dying; is unclear whether assisted dying should be considered a 'treatment'. Provision of adequate care Proposes a panel which is not a multidisciplinary team and will not know the patient; proposes use of drugs which are not regulated or approved and does not mandate any monitoring of their complications.
Sky News
8 hours ago
- Health
- Sky News
'It's simply not safe': A thousand doctors write to MPs urging them to vote against assisted dying bill
More than 1,000 doctors have written to MPs urging them to vote against the assisted dying bill, calling it a "real threat to both patients and the medical workforce". The bill - which is due to be voted on by MPs for a final time on 20 June - would allow terminally ill patients from England and Wales to end their lives "on their own terms", providing they have a life expectancy of six months or less. A separate bill is currently passing through the Scottish parliament. But doctors from across the NHS have written to MPs, warning them of their "serious concerns". Notable signatories include Sir John Burn, a geneticist who has led decades of cancer research, Sir Shakeel Qureshi, who was knighted for his work in paediatric cardiology, Professor Aileen Keel, the former deputy chief medical officer for Scotland, and Baroness Finlay, a Welsh doctor, professor of palliative medicine and member of the House of Lords. The letter is signed by four doctors who hold OBEs, two who have MBEs, and one CBE. The letter says that while a debate is needed on end of life care, "this bill is not the answer". It raises concerns that not enough evidence has been heard from 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," it goes on to say, calling it a "deeply flawed bill". 1:40 Professor Colin Rees, a member of the Royal College of Physicians working group on assisted dying, said it was the "single most important piece of healthcare legislation in 50 or 60 years". "It will have very profound consequences for the future and many doctors are really concerned that members of parliament are not hearing the views of the medical profession." He said many doctors who remain neutral, or who even support the principle of assisted dying, remain concerned about the bill. "We don't think it's a bill that is safe, that protects patients, protects families, and protects the medical workforce." What stage are the two assisted dying bills at now? The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed the House of Commons with a majority of 55 in November. Scotland's Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland Bill) pass with a 14 majority in May. But the legislation has not been without controversy, with 150 amendments made to get it through the first stage. The bill will return to the House of Commons for a third reading this Friday. If voted through by MPs it will then proceed to the House of Lords. 'No safeguards against coercion' One of the areas of concern raised by the medics was the inability to properly identify patients at risk of coercive control. "Vulnerable patients are at risk of coercion with women, victims of domestic abuse, and the elderly at particular risk," the letter says. It also warned it would widen social inequalities, with patients who do not have the resources for a comfortable death more likely to opt for assisted dying. "People who struggle to pay for heating or care or wish to preserve their assets for their children are at high risk of choosing to die if the option is available and the alternative is more difficult." Data from the Annual Report of Dying With Dignity from Oregon in 2024 found 9.3% of those people who choose assisted deaths do so for financial reasons. Concerns have also been raised around the inaccuracies of medical prognosis. "Research demonstrates that doctors get prognosis wrong around 40% of the time," the letter says. "As such, patients may end up choosing an assisted death and losing what could have been happy and fulfilling months or years of life." 1:50 The bill is also a risk to families, the letter says, as it does not require doctors to speak with family members. "A close relative may know nothing until they get a call to arrange collection of their relative's body," it says, adding that there is no mechanism for a family member to raise concerns about a request. The letter also addressed the potential impact on the medical workforce. Evidence from the Netherlands suggests "doctors feel pressurised when dealing with patient requests for assisted deaths, meaning that doctors may end up having involvement despite it being against their principles, because they want to help their patients".
The Independent
15-05-2025
- Health
- The Independent
Smacking ban is needed to protect children, health experts say
Leading health experts have urged parliamentarians to give children the 'fundamental right to safety and protection' by backing a smacking ban. Experts from a number of medical specialties, including children's doctors and psychiatrists, said that decades of research shows the 'detrimental effects of physical punishment'. According to the Children Act 2004, it is unlawful to hit your child, except where it is 'reasonable punishment', and this is judged on a case-by-case basis. But experts said these laws are 'vague and dangerous'. Now 13 health organisations are calling on the Government to back an amendment to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill which would remove the 'reasonable punishment' defence from law in England. They said that the Bill reaching committee stage in the House of Lords is a 'pivotal moment' in the smacking ban campaign. Baroness Finlay has proposed an amendment to eliminate the 'reasonable punishment' defence. In an open letter, the organisations said this defence is 'archaic' and 'allows for the physical punishment of children'. 'This leaves them with less protection from assault than adults, an unacceptable disparity in our modern society,' they wrote. 'The evidence is clear: physical punishment is harmful, ineffective, and has no place in a society that values the well-being of its children.' The organisations called on the Government to 'stand on the side of our children and ensure their fundamental right to safety and protection', adding: 'By removing this archaic defence, we can send a clear message that violence against children is never acceptable.' Professor Andrew Rowland, child protection officer at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and a consultant paediatrician, said: 'There is now strong agreement from health and social care professionals that the current laws around physical punishment of children, including smacking, are unjust, vague and ultimately dangerous. 'It is time to bring protection from physical assault for children in line with the protection afforded to adults. 'Every child deserves the best possible start to life, and eradicating physical punishment of children is a key part of that aim.' Dr Elaine Lockhart, head of the Child and Adolescent Faculty at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, added: 'The physical punishment of children is not just cruel, it is dangerous: the practice has been shown to be detrimental to children's mental health and leads to poor developmental outcomes.' Dr Tamasin Knight, from the British Medical Association's public health medicine committee, added: 'We believe that children should have full legal protection from all forms of physical punishment.' The full list of signatories on the letter are: Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health; Faculty of Public Health; Royal Society of Medicine; School and Public Health Nurses Association; Institute of Health Promotion and Education; Institute of Health Visitors; Royal Society for Public Health; British Association for Child and Adolescent Public Health; British Medical Association; Royal College of Psychiatrists; Aldey Hey Hospital Charity; Alliance 4 Children and Barnardo's. The Government has been approached for comment.
Daily Mail
15-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
Doctors demand introduction of smacking ban to bring England into line with Scotland and Wales and warn current laws 'unjust and dangerous'
Leading doctors are demanding a smacking ban in England to give children the 'fundamental right to safety and protection '. Experts from a range of medical specialities, including paediatricians and psychiatrists, say decades of research shows the 'detrimental effects of physical punishment'. The Children Act 2004 makes it is unlawful to hit your child - except where it is 'reasonable punishment'. But this defence is judged on a case-by-case basis and the critics warn it is 'vague and dangerous'. It increases the risk of serious physical assault and negatively affects children's development, they add. The lack of legislative clarity also adds an extra layer of complexity for professionals when trying to identify cases of child abuse. Now 13 health organisations are calling on the Government to back an amendment to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill which would remove the 'reasonable punishment' defence from law in England. They said that the Bill reaching committee stage in the House of Lords is a 'pivotal moment' in the smacking ban campaign. Smacking is already banned in Scotland and Wales. Baroness Finlay has proposed an amendment to eliminate the 'reasonable punishment' defence. In an open letter, the organisations said this defence is 'archaic' and 'allows for the physical punishment of children'. 'This leaves them with less protection from assault than adults, an unacceptable disparity in our modern society,' they wrote. 'The evidence is clear: physical punishment is harmful, ineffective, and has no place in a society that values the well-being of its children.' The organisations called on the Government to 'stand on the side of our children and ensure their fundamental right to safety and protection', adding: 'By removing this archaic defence, we can send a clear message that violence against children is never acceptable.' Professor Andrew Rowland, child protection officer at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and a consultant paediatrician, said: 'There is now strong agreement from health and social care professionals that the current laws around physical punishment of children, including smacking, are unjust, vague and ultimately dangerous. 'It is time to bring protection from physical assault for children in line with the protection afforded to adults. 'Every child deserves the best possible start to life, and eradicating physical punishment of children is a key part of that aim.' Dr Elaine Lockhart, head of the Child and Adolescent Faculty at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, added: 'The physical punishment of children is not just cruel, it is dangerous: the practice has been shown to be detrimental to children's mental health and leads to poor developmental outcomes.' Dr Tamasin Knight, from the British Medical Association's public health medicine committee, added: 'We believe that children should have full legal protection from all forms of physical punishment.' The full list of signatories on the letter are: Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health; Faculty of Public Health; Royal Society of Medicine; School and Public Health Nurses Association; Institute of Health Promotion and Education; Institute of Health Visitors; Royal Society for Public Health; British Association for Child and Adolescent Public Health; British Medical Association; Royal College of Psychiatrists; Aldey Hey Hospital Charity; Alliance 4 Children and Barnardo's.
