Labour MPs turn on assisted dying Bill

Labour MPs have turned against the assisted dying Bill and, at the eleventh hour, urged their colleagues to vote down the 'drastically weakened' plans.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill returns to the Commons on Friday, where it is set to become law if enough MPs back it in a historic vote.
The Bill, under which terminally ill adults expected to die within six months could seek medical assistance to end their lives, was initially passed by 55 votes in November.
However, Friday's vote is said to be on a 'knife-edge' after a series of controversies about changes to the Bill that critics say weaken the proposed laws.
Labour MPs Markus Campbell-Savours, Kanishka Narayan, Paul Foster and Jonathan Hinder previously backed the Bill, but on Thursday announced that they were switching to vote it down.
In a last-minute letter to all MPs, they said: 'The Bill presented to MPs in November has been fundamentally changed. This is not the safest Bill in the world. It is weaker than the one first laid in front of MPs, and has been drastically weakened.'
One major point of contention is the dropping of a requirement for a High Court judge to sign off on all assisted dying cases.
Under revised plans, patients will be able to have an assisted death with the approval of two doctors and an assisted dying panel, made up of a psychiatrist, social worker and a legal expert.
The MPs also warned that predictions of life expectancy could be wrong, with some patients given six months to live going on to survive for three years or more.
'No one should be robbed of the possibility of an extra three years of precious memories with loved ones. Christmases, birthdays, weddings, meeting grandchildren they never thought they may meet,' they said.
'If faced by the same decision, would any of us choose to end our lives if we knew there was a chance to live them instead?'
A fifth Labour MP, Dan Carden, also revealed on Thursday that he was switching from abstain to no, as he felt legalising assisted dying 'will normalise the choice of death over life, care, respect and love'.
Senior Conservatives have also been critical of the Bill. Danny Kruger, one of the leading voices opposing the legislation, said that it was a 'world away from the limited, carefully safeguarded arrangements that the assisted death campaign promised us'.
Writing for The Telegraph (see below), Mr Kruger said those who were approaching the end of their lives, or who were disabled, were vulnerable and 'profoundly influenced by the people around us, not least because we are profoundly dependent on others'.
'We do not make decisions in a vacuum, and imagining we do – pretending that anxious, bullied or depressed patients have the 'autonomy' to make uninfluenced the most momentous decision it is possible for a human being to make – is infantile,' he said.
Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, said on Thursday that the legislation was a 'bad Bill' and had 'not been done properly', and urged Tory colleagues to vote against it alongside her.
More than 21 MPs are thought to have moved from either supporting the Bill or abstaining to no, with others still to make up their minds.
It is unclear whether there have been enough switchers to defeat the Bill, with its backers hopeful that support will hold to bring about the momentous change to the law. In order to stop the Bill, 28 MPs would need to change their votes from yes to no.
'The vote is on a knife-edge,' one figure helping count MP support told The Telegraph. The source also claimed that the number of MPs who abstained on the legislation could rise compared with the first vote in November, making it harder to predict the result.
If it passes, the Bill will go to the House of Lords, where it could be amended, but in effect it is almost certain that it will become law and come into effect by 2029.
If it is defeated, it is likely that it will be years before the question of legalising assisted dying is put before the Commons again.
MPs are rushing back to Westminster, with some critics taking exceptional measures to have their say. Dame Karen Bradley, the former culture secretary, is flying back from a parliamentary group visit to Rome to make sure she can vote against the legislation.
She told The Telegraph: 'In all conscience, I couldn't miss the vote. I do not think it will deliver the safeguards that people want and need.'
However, some MPs on sick or compassionate leave will not be able to cast their ballot because of parliamentary rules stopping them from voting by proxy.
One MP critical of the Bill, Sorcha Eastwood, tested positive for Covid and was set to miss the vote on Thursday. But, according to one opposition campaign source, she is exploring whether an ambulance can take her to Parliament to vote no.
There is confusion about whether Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, who has long supported legalising assisted dying, will vote for the Bill.
He has declined to publicly make the case for the change in an apparent attempt to make sure he does not influence the debate, given that MPs are free to vote with their consciences.
A Downing Street spokesman declined to confirm on Thursday that the Prime Minister would vote to legalise assisted dying. He voted yes in November.
The vote stems from a Private Member's Bill, which means it is being spearheaded by a backbench MP with the Government neutral on the issue.
Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the legislation, moved to back an amendment from Naz Shah, a Labour MP and an opponent of assisted dying, in a sign she is scrambling to reassure MPs concerned about the Bill's safeguards.
The amendment would bar people becoming eligible for an assisted death purely on the basis that they had voluntarily stopped eating and drinking.
Ms Leadbeater has insisted that this change would close the so-called 'anorexia loophole' – a gap in safeguards that means sufferers could qualify for assisted dying on the basis of life-threatening malnutrition.
However, in the final 24 hours before the vote, Ms Shah, who tabled the amendment, as well as leading psychiatrists and eating disorder charities, said this claim was wrong. Patients with severe eating disorders could still be deemed eligible for assisted death if their physical decline – caused by a treatable mental illness – was judged to be life-threatening, they said.
On Thursday night, Dr Annabel Price, the Royal College of Psychiatrists' lead on assisted dying in England and Wales, told The Telegraph that the 'anorexia loophole' could only be closed if this exclusion was set out on the face of the Bill.
'If the [Terminally Ill Adults] Bill were to proceed, it is essential that it excludes the physical effects of mental disorder as the basis for eligibility. Malnutrition caused by anorexia nervosa, for example, has been deemed as a terminal illness under similar pieces of legislation in other jurisdictions,' she said.
On Thursday, Ms Leadbeater said she was 'positive and optimistic' that the Bill would pass, insisting at a press conference that her legislation was 'the most robust assisted dying Bill in the world'.
Dangerous Bill is a world away from what the campaign promised
By Danny Kruger
Never mind the process. The late publication of Kim Leadbeater's Bill, the huge changes she made to it after the first big vote in the Commons, the unbalanced evidence sessions and the rushed debates – all that is secondary.
The main problem is the Bill itself, which is a world away from the limited, carefully safeguarded arrangements that the assisted death campaign promised us.
I understand the fear of a bad death, particularly as people approach older age. For them, this isn't an abstract but an imminent threat. Many will have known their contemporaries die badly, in pain and distress and at the mercy of a health system that simply isn't good enough at managing the end of life.
Personally, I don't think this is a reason to legalise assisted suicide. The fact is there is no pain that can't be lessened by modern analgesic medicine and techniques such as nerve blocks, and there is always palliative sedation (an induced coma) for those who need it.
We do not need to kill people to spare them pain. But I respect the view of those who think this option should exist to give people peace of mind that they will not face an agonising death.
But this isn't a Bill just for those people. Kim Leadbeater rejected amendments that would have restricted the new service to people seeking to avoid pain. The Bill contains no criteria for who is eligible, or why they want to die.
As she admitted in the Bill committee, a person whose sole motivation for seeking an assisted death is to save their family money would be perfectly eligible to proceed; indeed, the doctors or the expert panel that approves the death would not be allowed to refuse an application on these grounds.
And so every ill or frail person approaching the end of their lives – and all the disabled people who would qualify too – will be obligated to consider this option. They would have to decide whether they want to live for longer, a burden on their family and the NHS, or to do what will increasingly be seen as the 'right thing to do'.
Put like this – given our natural and admirable impulse not to be a burden on others, and our fear of suffering – you can see why so many people, many more than the handful of desperate cases the campaigners parade in their advertising, would feel compelled to take this option.
In parts of Canada, with the law there less than a decade old, nearly 10 per cent of deaths are 'assisted'. This is our future too if we pass this Bill.
Yes, it's an 'option', and you don't have to do it. But this libertarian framing of the issue misses the reality of vulnerability. At the end of life, or if we are disabled, we are profoundly influenced by the people around us, not least because we are profoundly dependent on others.
We do not make decisions in a vacuum, and imagining we do – pretending that anxious, bullied or depressed patients have the autonomy to make uninfluenced the most momentous decision it is possible for a human being to make – is infantile.
As Gordon Brown argued in a powerful intervention this week, the 'options' are not equal. The assisted death route will be organised, funded, advertised. The alternative, palliative care, is underfunded, bureaucratic and in places non-existent.
But there is hope. If we reject this Bill, we can do what the whole House agrees needs to be done – we can properly fix palliative care. We can invest real money in hospices and ensure everyone has the care they deserve – without pain, with dignity – at the end of life.
That would be a worthy conclusion of Kim Leadbeater's efforts, and of all the words we have wasted on her flawed and dangerous Bill.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

South Wales Argus

17 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

19 minutes ago

• The Independent

What's the point of the UK talking to Tehran? More than you might think…

Europe's frantic diplomatic mission in Geneva may go down as one of its most arduous ventures on the world stage – and also one of its most consequential. The foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany must persuade a battered Iranian regime to kow-tow to the US and Israel over its nuclear ambitions, or face likely annihilation. All three European powers would, of course, love to see the back of supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei's corrupt and brutal theocracy. But they rightly fear the regime's capacity to unleash death and destruction before it goes. If Trump joins Israel in the war on Iran with US bunker-busting bombs on nuclear sites, and it succeeds in killing Khamenei, there will still be plenty of Iranian hardliners left who will be willing to fight to the death. Previous inhibitions will not apply. That could mean use of a dirty bomb in the West, or chaos unleashed in the Strait of Hormuz, through which 90 per cent of the Gulf's oil passes. For the world at large, the stakes are that high. British foreign secretary David Lammy – after meeting his US counterpart, Marco Rubio, and presidential envoy Steve Witkoff in Washington on Thursday – said that the UK was 'determined that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon". He thinks a window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution, as Trump dithers over whether to attack the regime, as US neo-cons and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu are demanding – or whether to heed the no-more-wars mantra of his Maga base. And so, in search of a diplomatic solution, Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi is meeting with his European counterparts in Switzerland. But what can be achieved? For all their good intentions – French president Emmanuel Macron said the diplomats would make a "comprehensive, diplomatic and technical offer of negotiation" to Iran – the Europeans are unlikely to persuade the Iranians to pull back from the brink. At least not on their own. While one Iranian diplomat said Tehran was willing to pursue 'a balanced and pragmatic policy in its dealings with Europe, and engage rationally with both East and West', Araghchi said there will be 'no talks' with the US over Iran's nuclear programme while the Israeli bombardment continues: 'The Americans want negotiations and have sent messages several times, but we have clearly said that there is no room for dialogue.' But there is a useful point to holding talks on neutral ground with Tehran – and it's not simply to ask them nicely and face-to-face if they wouldn't mind stopping with their nuclear enrichment programme. Rather than relaying Trump and Netanyahu's demands to Iran, Geneva is about feeding back to the White House – translating Tehran's position for the US president. The Europeans aren't there to stop the war, they're Trump-whispering for the Ayatollah. It's not clear that European diplomats have the connections they need to have a greater role to play than this, useful though it will prove. But when it comes to a practical breakthrough, some of the Gulf states might, however. Behind the scenes, figures in what some dub 'Iran's deep state' – many of them members of the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – are talking to representatives of Oman and Qatar; it might be these Middle Eastern countries that can make the difference, in a second stage of dialogue. Qatar, for its part, will likely hold more sway over Washington than London or Paris. All the peacemakers, though, will be battling the plans of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Nothing less that the obliteration of the regime in Tehran will satisfy him. Worryingly, Israel's premier appears to have been joined by an increasingly pro-war Fox News, with Sean Hannity this week declaring that Iran 'is the biggest existential threat to the entire western world'. The West should have learnt by now – after the disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya – that enforced regime change in the Middle East is best avoided. Andreas Krieg, a leading Iran expert at King's College London thinks regime change in Iran would 'not be clean or peaceful'. If the current theocracy falls, there is no significant alternative political-social structure to lead this country of 92 million into the light. The IRGC, a ruthless military-industrial complex, would not easily cede control of the Iranian economy. Instead, with 190,000 personnel and a similar number of Basij paramilitaries to call on, it might well create a military dictatorship. The West and Israel would be back to square one. And the Iranian people would be no better off. Ironically, the last time the West brought about regime change in Iran – by booting out, in 1953, the democratically elected premier Mohammad Mosaddegh (for which we have British Petroleum and the CIA to thank) – it laid the groundwork for the emergence of the current Islamic Republic in the 1970s. In between rounds of golf, as he ponders his next steps in the Middle East, you can't help wishing Potus would be shown – by Lammy or anyone else – the relevant pages of a history book. It is within the president's power to unleash hell – or stop history repeating itself. After the Geneva talks, let's hope he listens to what the Trump-whisperers tell him.

BBC News

26 minutes ago

• BBC News

UK preparing to charter flights from Israel, David Lammy says

The UK is arranging charter flights to return British nationals from Israel once Israeli airspace re-opens, the foreign secretary has Lammy confirmed the government was working with the Israeli authorities to provide flights out of Tel Aviv airport, the number of which will be based on demand. Israeli airspace is currently closed due to the ongoing conflict with Iran. The two nations have exchanged waves of air strikes since Israel targeted military and nuclear sites, as well as military commanders and nuclear scientists, a week statement came as Lammy arrived in Geneva for talks with Iran, in the hopes of negotiating an agreement on Tehran's nuclear programme. British nations who wish to return home from Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories have been advised to complete a form with their email and UK passport number. Lammy said this was to "register their presence in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories to be contacted with further guidance on these flights". Flights will only be provided to those who hold a UK passport, the Foreign Office said. Land routes out of Israel remain open and Lammy said UK staff will be on hand to support British nationals who have crossed the border - including providing transportation to nearby the Foreign Office said families of staff at the UK embassy in Tel Aviv and the British consulate in Jerusalem had been temporarily withdrawn "as a precautionary measure".The talks in Geneva with Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi will also include top diplomats from the EU, Germany and France.