Esther Rantzen and terminally ill preacher make case for assisted dying Bill

The broadcaster made a plea to parliamentarians on the eve of Friday's vote to change what she branded a 'current, cruel, messy criminal law'.
The House of Commons will have a debate and vote on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on Friday, which will see it either progress to the House of Lords or fall completely.
Dame Esther, a staunch supporter of Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, has been a prominent voice in the conversation on assisted dying.
Last week, Labour MP and Bill opponent, Rupa Huq, pledged to be a voice for the voiceless, noting that the Childline founder and others' views are already well-known.
She added: 'We know that Esther Rantzen wants this. We know (broadcaster) Jonathan Dimbleby wants this.
'But our role is to be voice of the voiceless as well.'
Dame Esther, who is terminally ill with cancer, said the 'truly voiceless' are the terminally ill who face ' an agonising death' and their relatives.
She told the PA news agency: 'This is a crucial debate for the truly voiceless.
'They are the terminally ill adults for whom life has become unbearable and who need assistance, not to shorten their lives but to shorten an agonising death – and their loved ones who under the current law will be accused of committing a crime if they try to assist or even stay alongside to say goodbye.
'These are the truly vulnerable and voiceless who depend on our lawmakers to change our current, cruel, messy criminal law.
'All this Bill allows is choice for desperately ill adults who are dying anyway but want the confidence of knowing that they can ask for help to choose what we all hope for; a quick, pain-free death with good memories left behind as their legacy for those they love.
'Please allow us terminally ill the dignity of choice over our own deaths. A change in the law cannot come in time for me, but will transform the final days of generations in the future. Those who disagree with assisted dying under the new law will have the right to their own choice, please allow the rest of us to have the same right.'
Dame Esther's words came as a group of terminally ill and bereaved people shared their stories at a press briefing alongside the Labour Bill sponsor, Ms Leadbeater, on Thursday.
Church of England lay preacher Pamela Fisher, who is terminally ill with cancer, made an impassioned speech against the religious arguments made by some who oppose assisted dying.
She said: 'I completely reject the assumption that the sanctity of life requires terminally ill people to undergo a distressing and painful death against their will. I disagree with those that say it is God alone who decides how and when we die.
'Yes, life is a gift from God to be honoured, but it's nonsensical to say that assisted dying is wrong because suffering is part of God's plan for us.'
The Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Vincent Nichols – who is opposed to assisted dying – has previously argued that the suffering of human beings is 'an intrinsic part of our human journey, a journey embraced by the eternal word of God, Christ Jesus himself'.
Meanwhile, Anil Douglas, whose father took his own life having suffered with multiple sclerosis, recalled the trauma of finding him.
He said a six-month police investigation followed, and told the press conference: 'The law in this country failed my father.'
He added: 'The (current) law leads people like my father to make lonely and dangerous decisions. It does not protect against coercion. It does not offer protections or choice for dying people.
'It does not offer terminally ill, mentally competent adults with six months or less to live, the chance to choose a safe and compassionate death when even the very best palliative care is not enough. It leads to lonely, dangerous, traumatic deaths.'
Bill opponents have argued it is not robust enough to protect the most vulnerable against coercion, and others who might choose assisted dying because they feel they are a burden.
The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

South Wales Argus

15 minutes ago

• South Wales Argus

MPs share their own stories as assisted dying debate continues

Debating the proposal to roll out assisted dying in the UK, Sir James Cleverly described losing his 'closest friend earlier this year' and said his opposition did not come from 'a position of ignorance'. The Conservative former minister said he and 'the vast majority' of lawmakers were 'sympathetic with the underlying motivation of' the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, 'which is to ease suffering in others and to try and avoid suffering where possible'. But he warned MPs not to 'sub-contract' scrutiny of the draft new law to peers, if the Bill clears the Commons after Friday's third reading debate. Backing the proposal, Conservative MP Mark Garnier said 'the time has come where we need to end suffering where suffering can be put aside, and not try to do something which is going to be super perfect and allow too many more people to suffer in the future'. He told MPs that his mother died after a 'huge amount of pain', following a diagnosis in 2012 of pancreatic cancer. Sir James, who described himself as an atheist, said: 'I've had this said to me on a number of occasions, 'if you had seen someone suffering, you would agree with this Bill'. 'Well, Mr Speaker, I have seen someone suffering – my closest friend earlier this year died painfully of oesophageal cancer and I was with him in the final weeks of his life. 'So I come at this not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance.' Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh spoke int he assisted dying debate (House of Commons/PA) Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden Dame Siobhain McDonagh intervened in Sir James's speech and said: 'On Tuesday, it is the second anniversary of my sister's death. 'Three weeks prior to her death, we took her to hospital because she had a blood infection, and in spite of agreeing to allow her into intensive care to sort out that blood infection, the consultant decided that she shouldn't go because she had a brain tumour and she was going to die. 'She was going to die, but not at that moment. 'I'm sure Mr Speaker can understand that a very big row ensued. I won that row. 'She was made well, she came home and she died peacefully. What does (Sir James) think would happen in identical circumstances, if this Bill existed?' Sir James replied: 'She asks me to speculate into a set of circumstances which are personal and painful, and I suspect she and I both know that the outcome could have been very, very different, and the the moments that she had with her sister, just like the moments I had with my dear friend, those moments might have been lost.' He had earlier said MPs 'were promised the gold-standard, a judicially underpinned set of protections and safeguards', which were removed when a committee of MPs scrutinised the Bill. He added: 'I've also heard where people are saying, 'well, there are problems, there are still issues, there are still concerns I have', well, 'the Lords will have their work to do'. 'But I don't think it is right and none of us should think that it is right to sub-contract our job to the other place (the House of Lords).' Mr Garnier, who is also a former minister, told the Commons he had watched 'the start of the decline for something as painful and as difficult as pancreatic cancer' after his mother's diagnosis. 'My mother wasn't frightened of dying at all,' he continued. 'My mother would talk about it and she knew that she was going to die, but she was terrified of the pain, and on many occasions she said to me and Caroline my wife, 'can we make it end?' 'And of course we couldn't, but she had very, very good care from the NHS.' Conservative MP Mark Garnier said he would back the Bill (PA) Mr Garnier later added: 'Contrary to this, I found myself two or three years ago going to the memorial service of one of my constituents who was a truly wonderful person, and she too had died of pancreatic cancer. 'But because she had been in Spain at the time – she spent quite a lot of time in Spain with her husband – she had the opportunity to go through the state-provided assisted dying programme that they do there. 'And I spoke to her widower – very briefly, but I spoke to him – and he was fascinating about it. He said it was an extraordinary, incredibly sad thing to have gone through, but it was something that made her suffering much less.' He said he was 'yet to be persuaded' that paving the way for assisted dying was 'a bad thing to do', and added: 'The only way I can possibly end today is by going through the 'aye' lobby.' If MPs back the Bill at third reading, it will face further scrutiny in the House of Lords at a later date.

The Independent

30 minutes ago

• The Independent

Poll of the day: Do you support the assisted dying bill?

The assisted dying bill returns to Parliament today for its final reading amid growing controversy – and a vote that could determine whether the legislation moves forward or falls entirely. A group of Labour MPs dramatically withdrew their support on Thursday night, citing serious concerns about the removal of key safeguards, including the requirement for High Court oversight. They warned that the bill had been 'drastically weakened' and no longer offers enough protection for vulnerable patients. If passed, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would allow people in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for a medically assisted death. Approval would be required from two doctors and a panel including a senior legal figure, a social worker, and a psychiatrist. Campaigners are making a final push on both sides of the debate, and with a narrow majority at stake, every vote counts. MPs have a free vote and are not bound by party lines. Supporters argue that the bill offers dignity and choice to those in need. Meanwhile, opponents argue it opens the door to abuse and erodes trust in end-of-life care. With so much at stake and such deeply personal questions at the heart of this debate, we want to hear from you: do you support the assisted dying bill? Vote in our poll and let us know your thoughts in the .

The Independent

31 minutes ago

• The Independent

Labour plans council tax shake-up that could see rich areas pay more

Labour is proposing a significant reform to council tax funding, aiming to make it fairer by directing more central government funds to areas with the highest need. The new approach seeks to alleviate the burden on local authorities that currently impose large council tax increases with little return, by enabling them to request lower rises. The reform will likely result in less central funding for areas where local services are not as stretched. A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government official said the current system has led to "perverse outcomes" and the new plan aims to be fairer to councils that have historically faced difficult financial decisions. A consultation has been launched by the MHCLG to evaluate how new funding allocations will be made, including assessing needs for adult social care, children's social care, and Special Educational Needs and Disabilities funding.