Latest news with #endOfLife
Forbes
08-08-2025
- Forbes
Microsoft Offers Free Windows Downloads—Do Not Miss Deadline
More than 700 million Windows users face a critical decision as Microsoft's impending deadline fast approaches. In the meantime, the company is offering free Windows software which you need to download "as soon as possible." Notwithstanding Microsoft's surprise u-turn on extending support for Windows 10 beyond the October 14 end-of-life, the software is still retiring. You can get this 12-month extension for free if you tick certain boxes, or if you're willing to pay $30, you can actually extend support for up to 10 PCs on one account. If you are sticking with Windows 10, either because you won't or can't upgrade your PC to Windows 11, then Windows Latest warns you to download and save the Windows 10 ISO file 'as soon as possible.' That's because 'even if your PC already runs Windows 10, system errors are never uncommon, and you may have to reinstall the OS.' It's likely although not certain that the Windows 10 ISO files from Microsoft's official website 'may still be available for a short while after October 14, 2025, but there is no guarantee of how long they will be available.' You should download now. 'There are two ways to download a Windows 10 ISO file for free,' the website explains. 'You'll need to change the user agent in your browser, as Microsoft doesn't allow you to download Windows 10 media files if you're already on a Windows device. Instead, Microsoft recommends trying the second method, which is the Media Creation Tool.' Windows Latest offers full details on securing and saving these downloads, as well as creating bootable USB drives and even burning the ISO file to a DVD. As I reported earlier this week, we have already seen early signs that the security update u-turn has stalled upgrades to Windows 11 that had been accelerating. Ironically, the newer OS had just overtaken its soon-to-retire sibling for the first time. As things stand, 45% of the entire Windows user base remains on Windows 10 — that means some 700 million PCs. Of those, more than 250 million are thought to be ineligible to upgrade given hardware security hurdles they don't meet. In my view, offering to extend Windows 10 support to PCs that could upgrade to Windows 11 is a mistake, as it simply kicks the problem a year down the road. In parallel with the u-turn, Microsoft is pushing the security benefits of Windows 11 as hard as ever. Upgrading is inevitable — and so if you can, you should.
The Independent
20-06-2025
- Health
- The Independent
Assisted dying bill: Why this momentous vote remains so uncertain
The third reading and final Commons vote on Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on Friday marks a truly historic moment for parliament. The stakes are so high that entrepreneur Declan Ganley has offered a private ambulance to MP Sorcha Eastwood, who is ill with Covid, to get her to the Commons to vote against the Bill. No wonder. It has been almost six decades since MPs have considered a Bill that would cause such a profound and fundamental change in the state's relationship with individuals and society's attitude to life and death. An historic vote In December Ms Leadbeater won a 55 majority on the second reading vote of her Bill, dealing with the principle rather than details, and is expected to carry a reduced majority today, although that is less certain than it was before. If she is successful then the state, for the first time, will be licensed to end people's lives if they wish it and if the circumstances allow. Doctors will be allowed to offer it as an alternative to people who have been given six months left to live. What factors will MPs be considering? The lack of certainty on the vote is partly fueled by the fact that a number of MPs who voted for the principle made it clear that they were allowing the debate to be had and would reserve judgment on the final vote. The debate in fact has moved on from one of principle - which only a minority oppose - to one of practicalities. The questions faced by MPs include: Can such a law be introduced to allow those with genuine terminal illnesses who wish to end their lives to do so without exposing the weak, poor and vulnerable to coercion to end their lives? Can the so-called tight restrictions be prevented from expanding beyond that through medical practice, judicial intervention or further legislation? Will this end up being a means for saving costs on the care centre and the NHS? Are the safeguards strong enough to ensure that the new law will not be abused? What will be the impact on hospices and end of life care? MPs changing their minds The reason that the vote has become tighter is because a growing number of MPs are concerned about the potential answers to those questions. The only issue will be whether that is enough to block the Bill. Based on votes on the amendments as well as known supporters and opponents, the predictive voting model used by opponents of assisted dying gives Ms Leadbeater a majority of up to 15, ranging to a defeat of the Bill by a majority of five. Very close. Key to the debate will not be the heartbreaking stories of people suffering in their final months, or celebrity voices like Esther Rantzen. They have already had their effect. More important will be the big change to the Bill brought by Ms Leadbeater which means a judge in court will not have to sign off, as originally laid out in the second reading vote. Instead, there will be an expert panel led by a judge or KC but not with the same legal authority. It is worth noting that the judicial safeguard was cited by more than 100 MPs in the first debate. The 'slippery slope' argument The other issue at play will be whether this Bill is a full stop to the issue or is something that will unleash a loosening up of the law over time. The lesson from the then Liberal MP David Steel's abortion legislation in 1967 will play a part in the decision-making of a number of MPs, who will be considering the so-called 'slippery slope' issue of an apparently tightly worded piece of legislation expanding its reach over time. Just this week we have seen MPs vote by a large majority to decriminalise abortion – effectively allowing it up to birth without criminal consequences from the 24 weeks (six months) already legislated for. But more important will be the experience of other countries where assisted dying has been legalised. Ms Leadbeater has been at pains that this is a specifically British Bill. However, in Canada, Oregon in the US, the Netherlands, and New South Wales in Australia the legislation has expanded beyond terminal illness to include mental health and other issues. Ms Leadbeater in fact highlighted a case of a couple who decided to end their own lives in Australia after 70 years of marriage even though terminal illness was not a factor. How the debate will unfold She will argue on Friday though that her Bill has been strengthened since November. Opponents will point out that she has rejected safeguards on eating disorders, mental health, the requirement of people actually suffering pain and many other apparently reasonable checks to the process. Attempts to restrict assisted death advertising were brushed aside. An attempt to protect hospices from offering assisted dying were dismissed. She had also opposed an amendment preventing doctors recommending assisted dying to children, the one defeat she has suffered so far. Many have consistently argued that a private members bill is not sufficient to debate something that will have such a profound effect on the country. Indeed, 52 Labour MPs asked Keir Starmer, a supporter of assisted dying, to give more time for further scrutiny, an appeal he rejected. The issue today will be whether all these questions and issues will mean there are enough MPs to have second thoughts from their vote in November to overturn a 55-majority. If the Bill is defeated then it will not come back before the next election, if Ms Leadbeater wins then it will have cleared its most important hurdle and a battle in the Lords awaits where many of the issues will be debated again.
RNZ News
08-06-2025
- Health
- RNZ News
Hospice funding crisis: Collapse of services could cost taxpayers millions
Hospice services are only available to one in three New Zealanders who are dying. File photo. Photo: 123RF Hospices are warning that critical services for the dying are under threat, with nothing for palliative care providers in the Budget. Hospice NZ says government funding only covers about half of what it costs to run New Zealand's 28 publicly funded hospices, but if services collapse, it will end up costing taxpayers millions of dollars more. Jen Nolan, whose younger brother Matt died at Te Omanga Hospice in Lower Hutt in 2019, said she dreaded to think how those final days would have gone without that "incredible, wrap-around care". The weeks following Matt Nolan's diagnosis with stage four melanoma were brutal: brain surgery, radiation, immunotherapy - nothing worked. It was a devastating blow when doctors said there was nothing more they could do - but Matt Nolan's admission to Te Omanga offered a different kind of healing. "When we walked in, I turned to one of my sisters and said 'God, it's like we've left Hell and we're in Heaven's waiting room'." Her brother's seizures and complex pain needs made it impossible for him to be at home, but Te Omanga became their home. "We could come and we could bring our dogs, he had a lovely room that opened out to the garden. His friends could come. "I walked in one day, and there he was, fast asleep, with two of his buddies also asleep in chairs. They were having a little nap together." Matt Nolan died in July 2019, three months after diagnosis. He had just turned 49. Six years on, Jen Nolan said it was heartbreaking that hospice services were only available to one in three New Zealanders who were dying. "If you face the death of a loved one, and you haven't got the option to go into hospice care, I think that would be a bloody grim place to be. "It was the most supportive and gentle place for us all to be with him. The care he received was outstanding. And I feel what we were shown as we navigated this incredibly difficult time was the best humans can be for each other." It cost $226 million to run the country's hospice services last year, with just half of that provided by the government. Hospice New Zealand chief executive Wayne Naylor said it was disappointing to not even rate a mention in the Budget - especially coming on top of the scuttling of the pay equity claim for hospice nurses. They are currently paid up to 35 percent less than Health NZ nurses. "That was a real out-of-the-blue sideswipe for hospices and hospice nurses in particular, to have our pay equity claim, which was almost completed, just stop." Indications that the government would not be covering future pay equity settlements for the funded sector were "very problematic". "That then falls back on community to provide more money to support their local hospice. "The alternative is that hospices have to make some staff redundant so that they can increase the salaries of other staff, and that leads to a reduction in services." Health Minister Simeon Brown told RNZ the government "values the work of hospices", but he said it was up to Health NZ to do its own negotiations with providers. "This Budget has provided $1.37b to Health NZ to not only deliver an increase in investment for those front-line hospital and specialist services, but also an uplift in investment to that funded sector, which includes primary care, which includes aged care, which includes palliative care." However, Naylor was not optimistic following meetings with Health NZ officials, the most recent one this week. "They told us they had no more funding, that they have no contingency that they can call upon, and the people with whom we met said they had no authority to allocate funding from anywhere else. "So essentially it's a no to funding from Health NZ right now." Assisted dying services receive about $11m a year from Health NZ, in order to ensure equitable access. "Which is fine for the fewer than 1 percent of people who seek it," Naylor said. "But for the 99 percent of people who die from an expected illness, only about a third can access hospice care. So there still remains that inequity that needs to be addressed." For dying children, access to specialist palliative care services were even worse . A recent MartinJenkins report found New Zealand's 28 publicly-funded hospices are returning at least $1.59 in health benefits for every dollar of taxpayer money received, including fewer ED and hospital admissions or rest home stays. Add to that the clinical services they directly fund themselves, the public benefit is even higher. Most patients under hospice care are able to stay in their own homes, with brief admissions to hospice for respite or to adjust pain medication. Nelson-Tasman Hospice nurse Donna Burnett loves her work, which is why she has stayed in the job for 36 years. However, the Nurses Organisation delegate said that good-will was being taken for granted by the government, and the end result for many was "burnout". "We can't keep giving the way we are. "Often we're short-staffed. We keep that patient centred care going, but it's coming at a cost. "We can't keep giving like we are and working understaffed because that has an impact on your wellbeing." In a written response to RNZ, Health NZ said it would shortly begin seeking feedback from the public and the sector on a model of care proposal for adult palliative care. It plans to finalise both the paediatric and adult models of care by the end of the year. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Yahoo
31-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Lawsuit filed against Kansas law nullifying end-of-life choices for pregnant women
Three women and two physicians are suing to block a Kansas law that invalidates a pregnant woman's advance medical directive about end-of-life treatment. The plaintiffs — one of whom is currently pregnant — are challenging the constitutionality of a clause in the state's Natural Death Act that denies pregnant women the option to make advance directives to accept or refuse healthcare if they become incapacitated or terminally ill. Patient plaintiffs Emma Vernon, Abigail Ottaway and Laura Stratton and physician plaintiffs Michele Bennett and Lynley Holman filed the lawsuit on Thursday. It argues that the clause violates the right to personal autonomy, privacy, equal treatment and freedom of speech by ignoring the end-of-life decisions of pregnant women. Cdc Removes Covid Vaccine Recommendation For Healthy Children, Pregnant Mothers Vernon, the pregnant plaintiff, wrote an advance healthcare directive stating that, if pregnant and diagnosed with a terminal condition, she would only like to receive life-sustaining treatment if "there is a reasonable medical certainty" that her child would reach full term and be born "with a meaningful prospect of sustained life and without significant conditions that would substantially impair its quality of life." The lawsuit says her directive has not been "given the same deference the law affords to others who complete directives because of the Pregnancy Exclusion, and therefore she does not benefit from the same level of certainty that the directive otherwise provides." Read On The Fox News App All states have laws allowing people to write advance directives on the medical care they would like to receive if they become unable to make their own health decisions. Nine states, including Kansas, have clauses to invalidate a pregnant woman's advance directive. The physicians who joined the lawsuit said the law requires them to provide pregnant patients with a lower standard of care than other patients and opens them up to civil and criminal lawsuits as well as professional penalties. The lawsuit says the doctors "are deeply committed to the foundational medical principle that patients have a fundamental right to determine what treatment they receive, and that providing treatment without a patient's informed consent violates both medical ethics and the law." New Mom Furious At Husband For Choosing Friends And Barbecue Over Her And Their Newborn "Yet Kansas law compels them to disregard their patients' clearly expressed end-of-life decisions, forcing them to provide their pregnant patients with a lower standard of care than any of their other patients receive," it continues. "It demands this diminished care without offering any clarity on what end-of-life treatment they are required to provide—leaving them to guess at what the law expects while exposing them to civil, criminal, and professional consequences for getting it wrong." The defendants in the lawsuit are Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, Kansas State Board of Healing Arts President Richard Bradbury and Douglas County District Attorney Dakota article source: Lawsuit filed against Kansas law nullifying end-of-life choices for pregnant women
Fox News
31-05-2025
- Health
- Fox News
Lawsuit filed against Kansas law nullifying end-of-life choices for pregnant women
Three women and two physicians are suing to block a Kansas law that invalidates a pregnant woman's advance medical directive about end-of-life treatment. The plaintiffs — one of whom is currently pregnant — are challenging the constitutionality of a clause in the state's Natural Death Act that denies pregnant women the option to make advance directives to accept or refuse healthcare if they become incapacitated or terminally ill. Patient plaintiffs Emma Vernon, Abigail Ottaway and Laura Stratton and physician plaintiffs Michele Bennett and Lynley Holman filed the lawsuit on Thursday. It argues that the clause violates the right to personal autonomy, privacy, equal treatment and freedom of speech by ignoring the end-of-life decisions of pregnant women. Vernon, the pregnant plaintiff, wrote an advance healthcare directive stating that, if pregnant and diagnosed with a terminal condition, she would only like to receive life-sustaining treatment if "there is a reasonable medical certainty" that her child would reach full term and be born "with a meaningful prospect of sustained life and without significant conditions that would substantially impair its quality of life." The lawsuit says her directive has not been "given the same deference the law affords to others who complete directives because of the Pregnancy Exclusion, and therefore she does not benefit from the same level of certainty that the directive otherwise provides." All states have laws allowing people to write advance directives on the medical care they would like to receive if they become unable to make their own health decisions. Nine states have clauses to invalidate a pregnant woman's advance directive. The physicians who joined the lawsuit said the law requires them to provide pregnant patients with a lower standard of care than other patients and opens them up to civil and criminal lawsuits as well as professional penalties. The lawsuit says the doctors "are deeply committed to the foundational medical principle that patients have a fundamental right to determine what treatment they receive, and that providing treatment without a patient's informed consent violates both medical ethics and the law." "Yet Kansas law compels them to disregard their patients' clearly expressed end-of-life decisions, forcing them to provide their pregnant patients with a lower standard of care than any of their other patients receive," it continues. "It demands this diminished care without offering any clarity on what end-of-life treatment they are required to provide—leaving them to guess at what the law expects while exposing them to civil, criminal, and professional consequences for getting it wrong." The defendants in the lawsuit are Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, Kansas State Board of Healing Arts President Richard Bradbury and Douglas County District Attorney Dakota Loomis.
