logo
#

Latest news with #EndOfLifeBill

Another month may kill assisted dying bill
Another month may kill assisted dying bill

Times

time19-05-2025

  • Politics
  • Times

Another month may kill assisted dying bill

Twenty years ago, parliament took its time debating whether foxes could be hunted with hounds, rather than shot as vermin or left alone to savage rabbits and nesting birds. Tony Blair's Hunting Act — a manifesto pledge — followed a million-quid donation from animal rights campaigners, something that his wingman, Lord Mandelson, lately admitted in The Times's How to Win an Election podcast was 'pretty transactional'. Yet it got a lot of nuanced debate and 700 hours of Westminster time. So far, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has not reached double figures in parliamentary hours. It was put forward not by the prime minister — although, in giving it time, he said he was 'pleased to keep a promise to Esther Rantzen'

There is still time for amendments to be made to the assisted dying bill – but it deserves to pass
There is still time for amendments to be made to the assisted dying bill – but it deserves to pass

The Independent

time16-05-2025

  • Health
  • The Independent

There is still time for amendments to be made to the assisted dying bill – but it deserves to pass

When the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed its first stage in the House of Commons in November, The Independent agreed with the majority of MPs. They voted at second reading to approve the draft law in principle, while many of them had reservations about the terms of the bill and expected it to be improved when it was subjected to detailed scrutiny. In particular, we agreed with those who said that the safeguards against coercion needed to be strengthened, and that the requirement for a High Court judge to sign off on a decision to die was unworkable. To her credit, Kim Leadbeater, the Labour backbencher who is the sponsor of this private member's bill, has taken those concerns seriously and sought to allay them. Since November, the bill has been improved, as was confirmed in the Commons on Friday. The safeguards have been strengthened and the role of the High Court judge has been replaced by a panel including a lawyer, a social worker and a psychiatrist. This is a better and more workable arrangement, drawing on a range of relevant expertise, rather than a narrowly legal authority. No doubt the bill could still be improved further. We are worried, for example, that the Royal College of Psychiatrists said earlier this week that it could not support the draft law in its current form because, among other things, 'there are not enough consultant psychiatrists to do what the bill asks'. But this raises questions that are beyond the scope of the bill itself, and it would be wrong to block the bill on the grounds that it may not be possible for everyone who wants to use its provisions to do so. If assisted dying is right in principle, it is better that it is available to some rather than none. Among the amendments Ms Leadbeater accepted on Friday was one to exclude anorexia explicitly from the definition of a terminal illness. This is another welcome change. MPs also agreed amendments to ensure that there is no obligation on anyone, such as medical staff, to take part in a patient's decision to seek an assisted death; to prevent doctors from discussing the option of an assisted death with under 18s, unless the patient has raised it first: and to require the government to publish an assessment of the availability and quality of palliative and end-of-life care. These are all further improvements to the bill. That is not to say that it has now achieved a state of legislative perfection. We remain concerned, in particular, about whether the protections for people with mental illness are sufficient. The Royal College of Psychiatrists says that 'mental health services simply do not have the resource required to meet a new range of demands'. Ms Leadbeater should continue to try to meet the concerns expressed in good faith by the bill's critics. There is still time for further amendments to be made before MPs are asked to give their yes or no verdict on the bill next month – and it can then be amended further in the House of Lords. However, one of the striking contributions to the debate on Friday was made by Marie Tidball, the Labour MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge. As an MP with a disability – she was born with shortened limbs and a single digit on each hand – she said she had voted for the bill in November on the understanding that it would be strengthened and improved, and that she was now satisfied that it had been. Of course, the bill is not perfect, and never could be, because the subject is so difficult and the circumstances in each case will be different. Ms Leadbeater must continue to make it the best it can be, but those MPs who gave the bill a conditional vote of confidence in November can now safely send it on to its next stage in the upper house.

MPs vote in favour of assisted dying opt-out for all healthcare workers
MPs vote in favour of assisted dying opt-out for all healthcare workers

The Independent

time16-05-2025

  • Health
  • The Independent

MPs vote in favour of assisted dying opt-out for all healthcare workers

No medics would be obliged to take part in assisted dying, under a change approved by MPs amid further impassioned debate on the controversial topic. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was debated for almost five hours on Friday. It was the first time the proposed legislation had returned to the Commons since a historic yes vote in November saw a majority of MPs support the principle of assisted dying. MPs voted for one new clause to be added to the Bill, which will ensure 'no person', including any medical professional, is 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 at-times emotional debate saw supporters of changing the law argue the Bill has returned with strengthened safeguards after being amended in committee earlier this year. But opponents have complained the Bill does not have enough protections and has been rushed through, with the criticism coming days after two royal medical colleges voiced their doubts on the legislation in its current form. Dame Esther Rantzen, who is terminally ill and is one of the most high-profile backers of the Bill, appealed for MPs to vote for what she termed a 'crucial reform'. In a letter to MPs on the eve of Friday's debate, she urged them to change the law 'as so many other countries have, not for me and for those like me who are running rapidly out of time, but for future generations to have the right if necessary, not to shorten their lives, to shorten their deaths'. She suggested some MPs opposed to the Bill have 'undeclared personal religious beliefs which mean no precautions would satisfy them'. This drew criticism in the Commons from Labour's Jess Asato who branded the Childline founder's comments 'distasteful and disrespectful'. An effort by Conservative MP Rebecca Paul preventing employees from providing assisted dying, while working for an employer which has chosen not to take part in the process, was rejected. Health minister Stephen Kinnock said that amendment might leave workers with 'conflicting obligations' and could make the service more difficult to access 'if employers can prevent their entire workforce from participating in the provision of assisted dying'. The Government is neutral on the Bill and any votes MPs make are according to their own conscience rather than along party lines. 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. Bringing her Bill back to Parliament, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater said assisted dying must be legalised to avoid terminally ill people acting out of desperation or making 'traumatic' trips to Switzerland. Following the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) statement this week on its 'serious concerns' including on numbers of psychiatrists available to sit on panels assessing a terminally ill person's application, Ms Leadbeater told MPs said she 'wouldn't anticipate any problems' on staffing. Other amendments discussed – but not voted on – on Friday included ensuring care homes and hospices can decide whether or not to be involved in assisted dying and that their funding would not be affected based on their decision. Elsewhere, Labour's Dame Meg Hillier spoke of her concern that patients could 'feel pressured into ending their lives' if doctors are able to raise the prospect of assisted dying with patients first in a conversation. Dame Meg has urged MPs to support her amendments which would mean that could not happen, and that health professionals could not raise the topic with under-18s. Neither of those were voted on. Another amendment preventing a person meeting the requirements for an assisted death 'solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking' – tabled by Labour's Naz Shah – was accepted by Ms Leadbeater without a vote. With dozens of amendments having been tabled for Friday, some MPs raised further concerns about the quality of the debate and the length of time allocated. The current stage – known as report stage – will continue on June 13, when further debate will take place in the Commons. If time allows on that day it is possible a third reading could take place, giving MPs another vote to either approve or reject the overall Bill and decide whether to send it on to the House of Lords. Speaking to pro-change campaigners following Friday's session, Ms Leadbeater said: 'We've got further to go, but I think it was a reasonably good debate.' Addressing a group in Parliament, including Dame Esther's daughter Rebecca Wilcox, Ms Leadbeater became emotional, saying she gets upset 'when we get obsessed with parliamentary procedure, when this is actually about human beings, and that's what I find upsetting, because I think it's not about a green book, or it's not about a piece of paper'.

Care homes and hospices must have right to opt out of assisted dying, MPs hear
Care homes and hospices must have right to opt out of assisted dying, MPs hear

The Independent

time16-05-2025

  • Health
  • The Independent

Care homes and hospices must have right to opt out of assisted dying, MPs hear

Concerns around the prospect of care homes providing assisted dying and the risks of patients turning to Google if not given all the options by a doctor have been raised in Parliament as the controversial topic was once again debated by MPs. Demonstrators gathered outside Parliament as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill came back to the Commons for the first time since a historic yes vote in November saw a majority of MPs support the principle of assisted dying. Dame Esther Rantzen, who is terminally ill and is one of the most high-profile backers of the Bill, appealed for MPs to vote for what she termed a 'crucial reform'. She urged them to change the law 'as so many other countries have, not for me and for those like me who are running rapidly out of time, but for future generations to have the right if necessary, not to shorten their lives, to shorten their deaths'. Dame Esther also suggested many MPs opposed to the Bill have 'undeclared personal religious beliefs which mean no precautions would satisfy them'. But Labour's Jess Asato criticised the Childline founder's comments as 'distasteful and disrespectful'. Opponents have argued the Bill does not have enough safeguards and has been rushed through, with two royal medical colleges voicing their doubts on the legislation in its current form. Among those opposed to the Bill, Paralympian Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson – who would have a vote on the Bill should it make its way to the Lords – has argued the Bill has 'not been made safer', criticising the scrapping of the much-lauded High Court safeguard in favour of expert panels. Other changes made to the Bill – which concerns only England and Wales – in recent months during a weeks-long committee process include the timeframe in which an assisted dying service might come into effect being doubled to four years from royal assent. In its current form the Bill 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. It is possible this part of the parliamentary process, known as the report stage, will run into a second day next month, meaning a vote on approval or rejection of the overall Bill would not take place on Friday. Bringing her Bill back to Parliament, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater said assisted dying must be legalised to avoid terminally ill people acting out of desperation or making 'traumatic' trips to Switzerland. As Friday's session – which could last for up to five hours – opened, she told MPs gathered in the Commons: 'Put simply, if we do not vote to change the law, we are essentially saying that the status quo is acceptable.' Referring to stories she had heard of people dying in 'deeply difficult and traumatic circumstances', she added: 'Too many have seen their terminally ill loved ones take their own lives out of desperation, or make the traumatic, lonely and costly trip to Switzerland, and then face a police investigation while dealing with their grief and loss.' Following a Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) statement this week on its 'serious concerns' including on numbers of psychiatrists available to sit on panels assessing a terminally ill person's application, Ms Leadbeater told MPs said she 'wouldn't anticipate any problems' on staffing. Amendments being discussed on Friday included ensuring care homes and hospices can decide whether or not to be involved in assisted dying and that their funding would not be affected based on their decision. Conservative MP Rebecca Paul, who tabled both amendments, said they 'provide important protections' which she argued 'are currently lacking in the Bill'. She told MPs: 'Whether you're in favour of assisted dying or not, we must preserve the rights of organisations, companies and charities to choose whether to offer it. They must never be bought into it by public funding being conditional on the provision of assisted dying.' Conservative former minister Sir Edward Leigh used his speech to express the views of a care home manager who spoke of the 'unworkable nature of individual exclusion from the processes of assisted dying in social care environments' Quoting the care home boss, he said: 'Specific exclusion of the care home sector should be a feature of the Bill. In any case, organisations and sites should and must be given the ability to exclude themselves from the act of assisted death.' Elsewhere, Labour's Dame Meg Hillier spoke of her concern that patients could 'feel pressured into ending their lives' if doctors are able to raise the prospect of assisted dying with patients first in a conversation. Dame Meg has urged MPs to support her amendments which would mean that could not happen, and that health professionals could not raise the topic with under-18s. She said the issue is 'a very difficult thing for a lot of people to understand, but particularly for young people' and warned of adolescents being 'more likely to take risks'. Alliance MP Sorcha Eastwood said there was additional danger presented by social media on the topic, telling the Commons she had heard 'almost all of our young people across the UK are having their mental health impacted by social media'. She said: 'If we throw this into the mix, this has the potential to do untold damage.' But Liberal Democrat MP Christine Jardine suggested patients not being given 'all the options' by medical professionals could see them, particularly young people who might be active on social media, tempted to search online for their own information. She said: 'The automatic reaction is to go and Google everything, in fact we all do it … the danger is if they are not told all the options, if they are not given the guidance that's available, then they will go to Google and what we will see is yet more of the dangerous suicide attempts that we see at the moment.' The Government is neutral on the Bill and any votes MPs make are according to their own conscience rather than along party lines.

Medics criticise assisted dying Bill ahead of MP debate
Medics criticise assisted dying Bill ahead of MP debate

Telegraph

time16-05-2025

  • Health
  • Telegraph

Medics criticise assisted dying Bill ahead of MP debate

Another leading medical body has raised concerns about the risks of the assisted dying Bill 'failing to protect vulnerable patients' as the landmark legislation returns to Parliament today. The Royal College of Physicians said it believed there were 'concerning deficiencies' with the proposed Bill as it stands. Its statement followed one earlier this week from the Royal College of Psychiatrists which said it had 'serious concerns' and could not support the Bill in its current form. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which relates to England and Wales, returns to the House of Commons today for the first time since MPs supported the legislation in principle back in November. The legislation was backed by 330 votes to 275 at second reading and MPs are now going to debate and vote on amendments during its report stage which is expected to run into a second day next month ahead of a crunch final vote. The Government is neutral on the Bill, which was tabled by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, and any votes MPs make are according to their own conscience rather than along party lines. It is far from certain that the Bill will make it onto the statute book, with all eyes currently on how many MPs could change their minds on the issue.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store