Latest news with #choice
Daily Mail
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
QUENTIN LETTS: Something ominous was in the air, and possibly soon in your veins...
The assisted dying vote was reported at half past two. 'Unlock!' said Speaker Hoyle, and his voice went all strangulated. Had someone slipped Mr Speaker a lethal dose? It was that sort of a day. Jangling. Something ominous in the air. And possibly soon in your veins. Four hours' talk of death made for an incongruous Friday this flaming June. Outside, the blessings of creation twinkled under a blue sky. Inside the chamber, MPs anguished over death-bed agonies and the prospect, some feared, of disabled or anorexic patients being hastened to their Maker. The state would now 'exercise power over life and death', said Tom Tugendhat (Con, Tonbridge). Supporters of the Bill heckled him. But he was only reflecting the reality if this Bill is passed by the Lords. The Upper House may disagree. The majority of 23 felt slender. Brexit had a majority of over a million and the Lords did its best to kibosh that. Chi Onwurah (Lab, Newcastle C) noted that private companies, as well as the state, would now be able 'to kill citizens'. My dears, we're going private for Grandpa. So much quicker, and they'll play Vivaldi's Four Seasons to muffle the sound of his death rattle. Ms Onwurah's was one of three or four speeches that appeared to start with one position and concluded with the opposite. The debate drifted like seaweed. A strong speech for choice from Kit Malthouse (Con, NW Hants) would be balanced by an affecting plea from Jen Craft (Lab, Thurrock) to think of pressure being placed on disabled people. Ms Craft has a daughter with Down's syndrome. Kim Leadbeater (Lab, Spen Valley) was her usual chirpy self as she moved her private Bill. She bounced about, grinned exhaustingly and said 'this is a robust process!' and 'take back control of your dying days!' Death by exclamation mark. There was a dissonance between her bleak obsession and this Butlin's redcoat persona. Ken Dodd playing an undertaker. One eloquent supporter of her Bill was Peter Prinsley (Lab, Bury St Edmunds), a doctor with 45 years' experience. He and John McDonnell (Ind, Hayes & Harlington) lent welcome age to that side of the argument. Others throbbed with the certitude of youth and, one fears, the naivety of new MPs yet to learn how officialdom mangles noble legislative intent. A former NHS manager, Lewis Atkinson (Lab, Sunderland C), insisted hospitals would cope. They always say that. More persuasive support for the Bill came from an intensive-care nurse, Sittingbourne's Kevin McKenna. He had trust in doctors. Do you? After so many NHS scandals? 'I wouldn't put my life, or the life of someone dear to me, in the hands of a panel of officials,' grunted Diane Abbott (Lab, Hackney N). Three times she spoke of 'the vulnerable and marginalised'. But Hanover-born Wera Hobhouse (Lib Dem, Bath) was indignant that constituents had told her that MPs were too stupid to care for the vulnerable. 'Ve haf to educate people!' fulminated Frau Hobhouse. Sarah Olney (Lib Dem, Richmond Park), shouting like a Sergeant Major, attacked the Bill's workability. Her colleague Luke Taylor (Sutton & Cheam), not the nimblest of orators, gripped a text of his speech tightly with his thick fingers and deplored 'the status crow'. It was a matter of 'how one might exit this earthly realm', he averred, more Mr Pooter than John Betjeman. James Cleverly, in the Man From Del Monte's suit, kept touching his heart as he feared money would be diverted from elsewhere in the NHS. We kept hearing the term 'a fundamental change'. When relations were bumped off, would suspicion be seeded? Mark Garnier (Con, Wyre Forest) was pro the Bill but admitted: 'I'm not the world's greatest legislator.' Oh. The most troubling speech came from a vet, Neil Hudson (Con, Epping Forest). Having killed many animals, he reported that 'the final act doesn't always go smoothly or according to plan'. He 'shuddered to think' what would happen when an assisted death turned messy.
The Independent
16-05-2025
- Health
- The Independent
Starmer will have to ‘run for the hills' if assisted dying bill fails, Esther Rantzen's daughter says
Sir Keir Starmer will have to 'run for the hills' if plans to legalise assisted dying fail, Dame Esther Rantzen 's daughter has said, after the prime minister promised her mother MPs would be given a free vote on the issue. 'Sir Keir promised mum [it] would happen. I think if he promised mum it would happen and then it doesn't happen, he might need to run for the hills. Because you don't cross my mum', Rebecca Wilcox told The Independent ahead of a debate in Parliament on the matter on Friday. Dame Esther, credited for her efforts in bringing the conversation on assisted dying to the fore in recent years, has stage four cancer. It is understood Dame Esther will try to follow the debate remotely on Friday, having given an update last month that she is on a different treatment since her 'wonder drug has stopped working' and faces an 'extremely limited' future. Addressing critics of the bill, her daughter said she doesn't believe there is 'a God out there that would punish me for not wanting my mum to have a painful death'. 'We are hoping that people of faith, who may not believe in this, respect our decision for choice', the TV presenter said. Proposals to legalise assisted dying return to Parliament on Friday are backed by Sir Keir but criticised by some medical bodies. The bill, Dame Esther said, will give terminally ill patients like herself the 'choice they need and deserve at the end of their lives', while Kim Leadbeater - the bill's sponsor - said it 'goes further than any other around the world in its safeguards, oversight and regulation'. While opponents have argued the safeguards do not go far enough, expressing concerns that the bill has been rushed through, Ms Wilcox - who said she is 'quietly optimistic' it will pass - said those people are 'listening to scaremongering and not looking to the facts'. 'This bill is safer than its ever been and it isn't being rushed through. If you want to look at laws that have been rushed through, there was one during covid that was brought through in six days. This has been 25 years... It has been really carefully considered', she said. 'We want safeguards. We want this law to be difficult to bring in. We want the committee to go through it line by line - there is nothing to hide here. It is all about safeguards at its core - and compassion kindness and choice. What are we as a society if we're stopping people having choice?' It comes after two royal medical colleges voiced their doubts on the legislation in its current form, with the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) saying it believes there are 'concerning deficiencies' with the proposed legislation as it stands. Meanwhile, the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) said it has 'serious concerns' and cannot support the current bill. MPs will take part in a five-hour session during which various amendments to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will be debated and voted on. It is likely this part of the 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. Meanwhile Sir Keir, who is on a trip to Albania and so will not be at the debate, has indicated he remains supportive of the proposed legislation. The PM voted for the bill last year and, in comments to reporters this week, said it was facing 'a lot of scrutiny', adding that he was 'satisfied' it had 'sufficient time' in Parliament. The government is neutral on the Bill and any votes MPs make are according to their own conscience rather than along party lines. Paralympian Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, who would have a vote on the bill should it make its way to the House of Lords, argued it has 'not been made safer', criticising the scrapping of the much-lauded High Court safeguard in favour of expert panels. But in a boost, new Reform MP Sarah Pochin has confirmed she will support it. Mike Amesbury, who she replaced in the Runcorn and Helsby constituency earlier this month, had voted no last year. Amendments potentially set to be debated on Friday include ensuring there is no obligation on anyone, such as medical staff, to take part in the assisted dying process; that no medical professional can raise the subject of assisted dying before a patient does; and that health professionals cannot broach the topic with someone under the age of 18. Expressing continued hope that her bill can keep making progress through Parliament, Labour MP Ms Leadbeater said proceedings in the Commons will be watched by terminally ill people and bereaved family members 'who are counting on us to make our law better, safer and kinder – not just for them but for all of us, whatever we might choose'. In a comment piece in the Mirror newspaper, she said: 'We are closer than ever to achieving the change the British public have long been calling for.' She insisted the Bill is 'even stronger' than it was back in November, and 'goes further than any other around the world in its safeguards, oversight and regulation'. While pro-change campaign group Dignity in Dying said Friday is a 'milestone in the journey towards a more compassionate and safeguarded law', the Christian Action Research and Education group, which is against the Bill, urged MPs to instead focus on end of life care. Its chief executive, Ross Hendry, said: 'Instead of legislating for assisted suicide, parliamentarians should look to ensure that every life is protected and focus on improving truly life-affirming forms of care.'
Times
11-05-2025
- Health
- Times
So this counts as equality: making it easier for the vulnerable to die
Another parliamentary vote on assisted suicide is due on Friday. So far, keen supporters of Kim Leadbeater's bill have tended to talk in stirring abstract nouns: 'choice', 'dignity', 'autonomy' and 'control'. But last week, though you might have missed it, we got a chance to see what happens when grand ideals come into contact with the grubby realities of the systems we already have. The day after the local elections, the government slipped out two reports on the projected 'impact' of legalising assisted death. And you can understand why officials might have wanted to see them buried. The longer one, running to 149 pages, mainly focuses on financial aspects. The standard way to put a cost on a treatment is to predict how many 'quality-adjusted
